Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Turkeys

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Food if he has yet found any more turkeys for Christmas.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): Supply prospects are a little brighter than they were a few weeks ago.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist temptations to interfere with the law of supply and demand in this matter, lest he should make it impossible for this trade to recover itself for next year?

Mr. Webb: I am watching the operation of that law with great interest.

Tinned Sardines (Openers)

Mr. Donald W. Wade: asked the Minister of Food what is the financial saving resulting from the import of tins of sardines without keys; and whether the saving is passed on to the consumer.

Mr. Webb: About 2 per cent. The price of sardines, which is controlled by my Department, is related to total costs over a period and the consumer, therefore, benefits from any saving.

Mr. Wade: Has the right hon. Gentleman tried opening a sardine tin without a key? Is he aware that it is a considerable inconvenience to the consumer not to have an opener? Would it not be practicable to put on the market some tins of sardines with keys and others without keys at a reduced price?

Mr. Webb: We have been prudent in our house. We keep our old keys and find them very useful.

Confectionery

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the recent alteration in the price schedule for sweets has resulted in lower margins for retailers, many of whom are small shopkeepers; and if he can give an assurance that steps have been taken to ascertain that no hardship will result.

Mr. Lionel Heald: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that certain prices of confectionery have recently been lowered in such a way as to cause hardship to small shopkeepers; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this.

Mr. Webb: The revised price schedule was introduced after a full examination of the position of the trade, and I am satisfied that it gives a fully adequate profit overall. But I obviously cannot guarantee


that every individual trader, irrespective of the circumstances, size or efficiency of his business, will make a profit.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Retail Confectioners asked for the withdrawal of the schedule? Will he bear in mind that the price schedule affects thousands of small shopkeepers, many of whom are widows, working on their own, and will he take into account the fact that sales are limited because of the points system and because many people do not take up their full quota?

Mr. Webb: I am aware of the complaint of the trade but, on behalf of the widows who buy the sweets, I found it proper to reject it.

Sir Richard Acland: Would not a much bigger burden have been placed on the consumer if private enterprise had been free from Socialist control in this matter?

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the quota of personal points capital available to wholesalers in the confectionery trade is based on a period 12 years ago; and if, in view of the hardship which this imposes on some wholesalers, he will investigate the matter, with a view to an alteration in the qualifying dates.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member has been misinformed. Wholesalers' personal points credits were re-assessed in 1949.

Fruit and Vegetables (Distribution)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food whether, in drawing up any plans for the reorganisation of fruit and vegetable distribution, he will bring into consultation the representatives of producers, wholesalers, commission agents, retailers and consumers.

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir.

Home Canning (Tinplate)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food what changes he proposes to make over the next six months in the allocation of tinplate for the home canning of fruit, vegetables, soups, jams and meat products; and what changes have been made since 1st September, 1950.

Mr. Webb: I shall not be able to answer the first part of the Question until I know how much tinplate will be at my Department's disposal during the next six months. In reply to the second part of the Question, food canners as a whole are at present getting about 20 per cent. less tinplate than at the same time last year; but it is left to them to decide how to allocate it among the various products they are licensed to pack.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will confer with the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that food growers are not asked to grow more food than is likely to be needed by the canners and the ordinary public?

Mr. Webb: That is only one of the many consultations we must have. We are very worried about tinplate. Many Departments are concerned. I shall certainly take into account the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, along with the many other considerations which I have to examine.

Mr. Dye: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need for an early decision because of the work involved in the growing and processing of the fruit and vegetables?

Mr. Webb: I am aware of the need for early decision, but we are limited all the time by considerations of supply.

Captain Crookshank: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to know what the allocation for the next six months will be?

Mr. Webb: I cannot say off-hand. If a Question were put down, I could give a proper answer.

Mr. Baker White: Does the answer to my supplementary mean that the Minister anticipates a serious shortage of tinned goods in the coming year?

Mr. Webb: I said that the question of tinplate supplies is causing great anxiety.

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, owing to the shortage of tinplate at British canning factories, and the presence in the shops of quantities of imported tinned peas canned in exported British tinplate, British pea growers are finding it impossible to dispose of their


crop to the canners; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Webb: Despite the general shortage of tinplate for canning, pea canning this year will be well up to last year's production, which itself was substantially heavier than in any post-war year. I think that any difficulties arise more from the fact that public demand for dried peas is limited than from the tinplate position. I do not think that the comparatively small quantities of canned peas which are imported affect the position substantially one way or the other.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that one of the largest firms of canners of peas is now refusing to take up peas, for the very reason that they cannot get sufficient tinplate in which to put them, and that one firm has been compelled to use glass jars?

Mr. Webb: I discussed this problem only last week with representatives of the canning industry, and they themselves are, on the whole, inclined to agree that we cannot escape from the obligation to send some tinplate to countries from which we get other food, and that we cannot dictate to them what use they make of it for sending food back to this country.

Mr. Shepherd: What steps is the Minister taking to force the tinplate issue, in view of the fact that, although the plant in South Wales has come into operation, in two or three year's time we shall be back where we are now?

Mr. Webb: Only by being as articulate as I can in the appropriate places.

Pork

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the large quantities of pig meat now coming into bacon factories, he will permit the diversion of pigs from bacon into pork.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) on 22nd November.

Mr. Hollis: Can the Minister give a guarantee that there will be adequate facilities in the factories to deal with the meat that is sent to them?

Mr. Webb: That is a matter on which I have been in recent contact with the industry. We are doing our best to solve their problems.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the difficulties which retail butchers are still experiencing in obtaining pork for the manufacture of pork sausages; and if he will arrange for supplies to be made available to them at manufacturing prices as they are to the meat manufacturers, ie makers and pork butchers.

Mr. Webb: I know of these difficulties. But our stocks do not enable us to distribute manufacturing pork to general butchers at present.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: is not one of the troubles that the Ministry's regulations permit pork sides of up to 110 lbs. to be passed to retail butchers, that these sides very often require considerable trimming, and that these trimmings can only go for manufacturing purposes so that butchers are put at an unfair disadvantage compared with the manufacturers?

Mr. Webb: The trouble is the shortage of pork. We have, in fact, been producing pigs primarily for bacon and not for pork, which, I think, is understood, and it would not be practicable at present to distribute the small amount of pork between 45,000 to 50,000 small butchers It simply would not work.

Danish Bacon

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement with regard to recent negotiations with Denmark regarding bacon supplies from that country.

Mr. Webb: These negotiations were adjourned on 24th November and will be resumed later this month.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress, if any, has been made? Can he assure us that the prices have taken fully into account the increased price of foodstuffs to farmers as a result of devaluation?

Mr. Webb: Yes, we have taken all these things into account. We have made


an offer to them, which they found unacceptable. They want us to pay 7½ per cent. on existing prices, and we have offered something about 3½ per cent. If we leave it at that, we may be able to solve the difficulty when they come over here again.

School Milk, Norfolk

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Food what is the actual financial saving to date in the 14 Norfolk schools when the pupils have been without a supply of school milk this term; and what would have been the cost if the suppliers had continued their supplies with an extra charge for long distance delivery.

Mr. Webb: Since 16th November, when my hon. Friend was given information in this House about the supply of milk to these schools, arrangements have been made to supply five of them; and officers of my Department and the local education authority are still pursuing every possible means of arranging for a suitable supply to the others. The incidental saving to the Exchequer has been about £350. I cannot say how much an extra charge for delivery would have cost, since the same charge would not necessarily be appropriate in every case.

Mr. Dye: Does not the Minister think that it is an awful thing that, for the sake of £350, children's milk at school should be stopped when their fathers are producing the milk? [Laughter.] I mean when the local industry has been producing plenty of milk? Is it only a question of the price which can be paid, since there is plenty of milk available there?

Mr. Webb: I suppose that, if the only factor involved was the £350, it would seem rather awful, but there are other factors. I have called for a special report on the whole situation, and if anything further can be done, it will be done.

Olive Oil

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food what is the present stock of olive oil , and how much of this was in store prior to 1st January, 1950.

Mr. Webb: Private imports of olive oils have been permitted on open general

licence since 5th September last. No stocks are held by my Department, and I have no information about stocks in the hands of private traders.

Fats

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food what is the present stock of fats and dripping.

Mr. Webb: Stocks of margarine and cooking fat amount to about three weeks' supply. In addition, substantial stocks of oils and fats are maintained for processing into margarine and cooking fat. Stocks of dripping are owned and held by the trade, and average about 2,000 tons.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister satisfied that these stocks are not being kept back? Can he tell the House that they are not too large for the purposes for which he intends to use them later?

Mr. Webb: I am never surprised at anything done by private traders.

Mr. Crouch: But is not the Minister aware that the private trader cannot distribute these stocks without the permission of the Minister?

Cooking Oil

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food what is the difference in the controlled price per gallon of cooking oil sold to potato crisp firms which were in business before 1939, and to those which started after 1945, respectively.

Mr. Webb: There is no difference. Potato crisp manufacturers all pay the same price for controlled oils allocated to them by my Department, irrespective of the date on which they entered the trade.

Subsidised Foods

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food if he will itemise the weekly expenditure on basic subsidised foods on which he bases the calculation that out of the average weekly expenditure of 15s. on food 8s. 3d. is spent on such subsidised foods.

Mr. Webb: With permission, I will circulate the details of this calculation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

The survey which showed an average weekly expenditure per person of 15s. on food gave the following estimate of expenditure on subsidised foods:



s.
d.


Milk
1
7¾


Meat
1
6¾


Bread
1
0


Shell Eggs

9¼


Bacon

9


Potatoes

7½


Butter

6½


Tea

5


Sugar

2¼


Margarine

2¼


Flour

2


Cheese

2


Lard and Cooking Fat

1½



8
3

Bananas

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Food to what extent the supply of bananas available for the home market is increasing; and when he anticipates that it will be sufficient to meet the demand.

Mr. Webb: There was a gradual increase in supply from 1946 to 1949, but, mainly as a result of damage by storms in some of the producing countries, the increase has, unfortunately, not been maintained this year. We are at present only getting almost one half of our prewar supplies, but I hope we shall do rather better than this next year. I cannot forecast when demand is likely to be fully met.

Colonel Ropner: Can the Minister say why there are so many more bananas all over the Continent than there are here?

Mr. Webb: There are more—not so many more as all that—because the price is quite beyond our capacity to pay.

Tea

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to announce an increase in the tea ration.

Mr. Webb: Supplies are not yet sufficient for me to do this, I am afraid.

Fish Prices

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Food what steps it is proposed to take to assist fishermen to get a better price; and how far it is proposed to give any assistance over the freight charges.

Mr. Webb: It has already been announced that legislation will be introduced in the present Session giving powers to the White Fish Authority to regulate, reorganise and develop the white fish industry and the matters mentioned by the hon. Member will, no doubt, be considered by that Authority; but I must say frankly that my main concern at present is the price which consumers are having to pay.

Mr. Grimond: When the Minister talks of the high prices which consumers have to pay, will he bear in mind the fact that only a small proportion of that price actually reaches the fishermen who catch the fish?

Mr. Webb: That is one of the considerations which I was very careful to point out a few days ago.

Protein

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food what additional rationed foodstuffs he proposes to make available to compensate for the decline in protein consumption arising from the reduction of the meat ration, and the inadequacy of shell eggs available, during the winter months.

Mr. Webb: My latest estimates show that the amount of protein available for civilian consumption in the United Kingdom this year has, in fact, been greater than at any time since 1940 or, indeed, in the immediate pre-war years; but I shall continue to watch the position closely.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this so-called increase in protein is due in large measure to the milk which is available? Is it the policy of the Government to turn this nation from a meat-eating nation into a nation of milksops?

Mr. Webb: Whatever it is due to, it is a fact, and I think we can all rejoice in it.

Shell Eggs

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food why he will not increase the existing shell-egg ration.

Mr. Webb: Mainly, I fear, because of the habits of the hen. Home production of eggs is always lowest at this time of year and so are imports, since most of


them come from countries in the Northern Hemisphere. If the hon. Member has any ingenious idea for overcoming this unfortunate tendency in hens, I—and the poultry industry—would be delighted to hear about it.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that many Western European soft currency countries have a considerable exportable surplus of shell eggs, and what is he doing to avail himself of it? In particular, what is he doing about the Irish, who promised to drench us with eggs?

Mr. Webb: We are doing a great deal more than the hon. Member thinks.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that, despite or because of the provocation of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the hen populations of this and other countries of the Northern Hemisphere are, at the moment, showing considerable restraint?

Mr. Webb: That is so.

Mr. David Renton: Is the Minister aware that the egg-laying habits of hens are formed mainly by man, and that he, among all men, is more responsible for those habits than any other man in this country?

Mr. Webb: I think we are plumbing dangerous depths here. All I can say is that I would not take any responsibility for what any hen does.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food what special steps he is taking to make available to housewives for laying down, during the spring-flush season of 1951, any surplus of shell-eggs; and whether he will assure that no such surplus is allowed to go bad in the course of distribution, as took place during the spring-flush of 1950.

Mr. Webb: In the spring of 1950 we authorised retailers to sell eggs freely to domestic consumers and we propose to do the same thing in the spring of 1951. Many people bought eggs for preserving last spring and no doubt will do so again next spring. In reply to the last part of the Question, I can only invite the hon. Member once more to produce evidence in support of his charge—and if he cannot to have the goodness to cease repeating it.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many branches of the National Farmers' Union and innumerable other bodies have complained about the long delays between the date of collection of eggs and the date of their delivery to the consumer? Will he consult these people, and establish the truth?

Slaughterhouse Facilities

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Food whether he is in a position to make a statement on the increased slaughterhouse facilities that he hopes to provide for next year's peak production of livestock.

Mr. Webb: I hope that the two experimental slaughterhouses at Fareham and Guildford will be completed by next autumn. As I have already said, we are encouraging local authorities to build slaughterhouses at places where existing facilities are seriously are inadequate and where there seems to be a permanent need for new slaughterhouses, but I cannot at present say whether any of these will be completed in time for the next peak season.

Mr. Dye: Will the local authorities be able to proceed with these plans and the building of new slaughterhouses during next year, ready for the peak period in the autumn?

Mr. Webb: That is my hope, and if all goes well I think that will take place—in some cases.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Labour Party's policy of centralised slaughterhouses is the cause of all this trouble? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly.

Sugar

Mr. Maudling: asked the Minister of Food what use was made of the 1,325,330 tons of non-Empire sugar which was imported into the United Kingdom in the year ended August, 1950.

Mr. Webb: The total quantity was, in fact, rather less than 1,200,000 tons. This raw sugar was needed to replace Empire sugar diverted to Canada, and to replace refined sugar exported from this country in order to earn hard currency or to save dollar expenditure in sterling area countries.

Mr. Maudling: How can the Minister reconcile that with his statement of 16th November that all sugar imported for consumption in the United Kingdom comes from Commonwealth and preferential sources?

Mr. Webb: There is no confusion there. We entered into an arrangement—a very good arrangement—with the Colonies and Dominions to use part of our sterling sugar in order to save dollar expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I shall be pleased to talk to him outside when, perhaps, I can convince him.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Films

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that one of the films referred to in paragraph 5 of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission for the year 1949, and entitled Transport, deals with matters of a controversial political character; and whether he will take steps to secure that this film is withdrawn from circulation.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I understand this film was sponsored by the British Transport Commission and was shown some time ago to Members of the House. I have heard no general complaint, although some Members would perhaps regard as political any film dealing with the activities of a nationalised undertaking. Similar films are being produced in the same series dealing with the activities of large private enterprises. In any case this is entirely a matter for the British Transport Commission and I have no powers to give them any instructions concerning it.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it very improper for public funds to be used for the production of a film which at least half the Members of the House of Commons would regard as intensely controversial political propaganda?

Mr. Barnes: I do not accept that implication. It was shown to Members of the House, and, as far as I know, if other Members wish to see it arrangements will be made for it to be shown again. I have seen this film, and in my view there are no political implications in it.

Captain Ryder: Is not the Minister aware that the authority responsible for this film is not shown when the film is being exhibited, so that one cannot see who is responsible for it?

Mr. Barnes: I do not suppose that that applies to the other films in this series. I am sure that when hon. Members have all the facts before them they will find that their suggestions are unfounded.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that the Chairman of the British Transport Commission is himself the principal star of one of these films? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Is he further aware that this gentleman is not a very good film actor, and will he kindly advise him to stick to the transport job which he is supposed to be doing?

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent a check is placed upon the amount of money spent by the British Transport Commission on the production of films for the general public, as referred to in paragraph 36 of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission.

Mr. Barnes: This, as I indicated in a reply given to the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) on 27th November last, is a matter for the British Transport Commission.

Mr. McAdden: Are we to understand that, as this is a matter of day-to-day administration, in the opinion of the Minister, he exercises no control over how many films they produce and at what cost?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: On a point of order. We have tried, Mr. Speaker, for many months, to put down Questions about the film policy of the Commission. Those Questions have been ruled out by the Table, I am sure quite properly, on the ground that the Minister says they are a matter for the Commission. Then the Lord President comes to the House and says we can ask Questions arising out of the Commission's Report. We put them down and they are accepted by the Table, whereupon we are told by the Minister that it is a matter for the


Commission. Does not this make it quite impossible to exercise any control whatsoever?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order there for me. It is entirely a matter of ministerial responsibility.

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of order. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the quotation from Kipling, that
A servant when he reigneth
Is more than ever slave"?

Mr. Speaker: To ask a question of the Minister of Transport is not a point of order.

Mr. McAdden: Can I have a reply to my supplementary question? As a point of order intervened, I will repeat the question. If it is true that, as the Minister says, he has no responsibility in this matter and that it is a question of day-to-day administration for the Transport Commission, are we to understand they can produce as many films as they like, costing as much as they like, and that he cannot do anything about it?

Mr. Eden: I rise to ask for a little guidance from the Treasury Bench on this matter. If we have been instructed, by the Lord President, as I understand we have, to put down Questions on this matter to the Minister so that we can get a reply, would the Minister be kind enough to reply?

Mr. Barnes: I have stated already that this is a matter for the Transport Commission. I understand that this comes strictly within the understanding which the Lord President read out to the House, and if I said in my original reply that this is a matter for the Transport Commission it would not be proper for me to be drawn into discussion of the matter through supplementary questions.

Mr. Eden: Exactly what did the Lord President mean if he instructed us, as I thought he did, to ask the Minister Questions on this subject? It is slightly bewildering, with the best intentions, to know what to do next.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give some evidence that I said that. I do not recall it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The point the Lord President raised is within the recollection of the House. He produced an analytical list of the Questions which could properly be addressed to the Minister, and some of us thought it rather widened the previous position. Quite apart from that, this is a Question arising out of the Annual Report of the Transport Commission. It is a matter of very great importance, which was previously ruled out of order, and which, we thought, very properly came within the Lord President's ruling. Now the Minister comes along and says that it is a matter for the Commission. It is useless to give undertakings like that.

Mr. H. Morrison: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who is well known as a propagandist on this matter—and not a very good one—puts a Question down referring to my specific statement on this matter and then we can consider it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the Minister of Transport asserts, and continues to assert, that this is a matter for the Transport Commission, will he undertake to give directions to the Commission, as provided under Section 4 of the Act, stressing the interest of the House in this matter?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly not.

Commission (Pension Scheme)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport what are the grounds of national policy referred to in paragraph 46 of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission for 1949, which preclude the Commission from introducing a pension scheme for their staff.

Mr. Barnes: In the discharge of my responsibilities for pensions under the Transport Act, I must take account of all the relevant circumstances, including the economic position of the industry and the general economic background of the country. At the time referred to in the Report, the Government did not consider that it would be in the national interest that there should be any large scale extension of supplementary pensions schemes, and we thought it right to make this view known to the boards of the socialised industries. Without being committed in any way as to the decision in the event of such schemes being


put forward, we have now made it clear that the boards are entirely free to negotiate with the unions on the matter. Any proposals which resulted would, of course, have to he considered on their merits in the light of the circumstances at the time.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Am I to understand that the original objection put up to the Transport Commission that, quite apart from the financial consideration, a pension scheme could not be introduced because it was against the Government's policy, has now been abandoned?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Gentleman will read the reply I have given to him he will find it perfectly clear. He is not entitled to put his own construction on the answer I have given.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Major Legge-Bourke: Arising out of the Minister's remark that it was contrary to Government policy to encourage supplementary schemes of this kind, will he say since when it has become so contrary, because when his right hon. Friend the then Minister of National Insurance, who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, introduced the National Insurance Bill, he said that supplementary schemes should be encouraged.

Mr. Barnes: I see no particular departure here from general Government policy. In many directions, the Government have indicated the need not to increase the cost of production if it can be avoided—we know the references with regard to wages—and in this case it was felt that the attention of the Commission should be drawn to the matter. It is perfectly right and proper for the Commission to discuss with the unions, but the Minister must eventually reserve the responsibility for deciding on the merits of any proposal put forward.

Bicycles (Equipment)

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to issue regulations requiring all bicycles to be equipped with a bell and two efficient brakes.

Mr. Barnes: I am informed that for some years manufacturers have been equipping bicycles with a brake or brakes as recommended by the Committee on

Road Safety. When I am satisfied that supplies of brakes and bells are available to equip any bicycles still without them, I will consider making regulations on the subject.

Mr. Kerr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a town like Cambridge, where the number of bicycles is very great owing to the presence of the University, the problem of accidents is becoming more acute every day?

Mr. Barnes: On the other hand, I would like to say that, from my experience of travelling through Cambridge, I think they have an excellent road safety committee which draws the attention of the public to this danger.

Mr. Maudling: Can the Minister arrange for similar regulations to be applied to the Minister of Defence before he makes any further week-end speeches?

Commission (Membership)

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet appointed a permanent member of the Transport Commission to replace the vacancy created by the death of the late Lord Ashfield.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. But I hope to be able to fill it shortly.

Sir A. Hudson: Could the Minister say why there has been this long delay?

Mr. Barnes: One can easily make an appointment, but it is very desirable to acquire a proper balance in these instances. It is not always easy to get persons to leave their other activities for a short period.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "a short period"? Can we hope that the activities of this body might be wound up quite soon?

Refreshment Rooms

Sir A. Hudson: asked the Minister of Transport how many of the refreshment rooms referred to in paragraph 467 of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission are operated by the Hotels Executive; and how many of them are let out to private enterprise.

Mr. Barnes: This information is given on page 318 of the Commission's Report.

Sir A. Hudson: Can the Minister say whether the nationalised refreshment rooms now pay their way?

Mr. Barnes: As the hon. Member knows, I cannot answer on every detail of the accounts of the Transport Commission.

Mr. Keeling: Before it was decided to close some of the refreshment rooms, can the Minister say what efforts were made to find lessees?

Mr. Barnes: That appears to be another question. I was asked a Question about a specific matter, and I said that the information sought was already available on page 318 of the Commission's Report.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the refreshment rooms at East Dereham, where he will find that the Hotels Executive were making a substantial loss and that since the rooms have been handed over to private enterprise they are running very well al a profit?

Road Passenger Executive (Expenses)

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Transport how much of the £2,618 allocated to office expenses in the accounts of the Road Passenger Executive are represented by the rent of the headquarters of this Executive in London.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission.

Mr. McAdden: Are there any questions to which the Minister does give an answer?

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, speaking generally, the public will recognise the wisdom of his refusing to allow the Transport Commission to be tied as suggested in these Questions?

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that under the Transport Act he has power to seek information from the Commission? Will he tell the House whether this is not a matter on which he should have sought information, bearing in mind that the public are entitled to know how their money is spent and their assets dispersed?

Mr. Barnes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole of the information is in the Annual Report. If he wants any further information he can get it and, within the proper arrangements, I should certainly see that any hon. Member who requires information should have it. As I have pointed out repeatedly, I do not intend to duplicate unnecessary staff and expenditure in my Department on simple machinery which the Transport Commission is charged to operate.

Sir Stanley Holmes: Does not the Minister of Transport appear, this afternoon, to be batting on a Brisbane wicket?

Mr. McAdden: May I ask in which part of the Report is the information relating to this Question to be found? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I suspect that I shall not have an answer, so I will go on to ask the next Question.

Container Loads

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Transport whether the transfer to rail from road of the container loads referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 26, on page 21, of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission was effected with or without the consent of the customer concerned.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter of day-to-day administration for the British Transport Commission.

Mr. McAdden: The next time that the Minister of Transport answers Questions would it be possible for us to have a gramophone record?

Mr. Manuel: May I ask the Minister not to rate too highly the synthetic indignation of the Opposition on these questions? Is he aware that all they are asking in connection with film expenditure or anything else is for more controls, which they tell the country they want to remove?

Mr. Braine: Has not the Minister made it quite clear, in reply to this and previous Questions, that the idea of nationalisation conferring public control over industry is a myth and a delusion? There is no public control whatsoever.

Rail Traffic (Test)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish the summary and analysis and the conclusions drawn from the test of a week's traffic carried by rail referred to in paragraph 28 of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission.

Coal Traffic

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport what are the arrangements referred to in paragraph 187 of the Second Annual Report of the Transport Commission whereby certain coal traffics, rail conveyed for relatively short distances, are carried at rates below those applicable to land sale tonnage.

Mr. Barnes: The traffic referred to was export coal moved to ports over distances less than the average for landsale traffic. The rates were less than the average for landsale traffic because the distances were less and, possibly, because of the existence of exceptional rates, the granting of which is a matter for the British Transport Commission, subject to the approval of the Transport Tribunal in certain cases.

Mr. Wilson: Is this a case of one nationalised industry being subsidised at the expense of another?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, I do not think so. The hon. Member is quite well aware of the general circumstances that prevail in dealing with traffics of this kind.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that export coal traffic is one of the most valuable traffics that British Railways have, and that preferential rates are very often granted because of long-distance haulage?

Mr. McAdden: In view of the recent statement by the Minister of Fuel and Power, are we to understand that this form of traffic will in future cease?

Mr. Barnes: Not at all.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (MONUMENT)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the erection of a public monument to the memory of

George Bernard Shaw; and with what result.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. I think that a public monument to the memory of Bernard Shaw might well be erected, but the question is not really one on which it is for His Majesty's Government to take the initiative.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is probably one of the few subjects in the world on which the Prime Minister would see eye to eye with Marshal Stalin?

COUNTY COUNCIL STAFFS, DURHAM (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any further steps to prevent the Durham County Council enforcing membership of an association or union on doctors and teachers in Durham county.

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake an immediate inquiry into the action of the Durham County Council's action in regard to its employees with a view to protecting their contracts of service.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply.
Parliament has left the choice of officers and their conditions of service to the county council except for very limited classes where ministerial approval is needed for appointment or termination of appointment. The county council have already been informed that the Government strongly deprecate the council's proposal to make membership of an association or union a condition of service. The Government or individual Ministers have no authority to take further action unless and until approval, where such approval is necessary, is sought to the termination of some appointment, or there is a breakdown, or threat of breakdown, in services for which the council have statutory responsibility, in which event Ministers concerned have powers to intervene in order to secure the proper maintenance of the service, and will, if necessary, do so.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the strong disapproval which has been expressed by


the Government of the action of the Durham County Council, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce legislation to prevent public bodies enforcing a closed shop in that particular form on their employees?

Mr. Morrison: I think that there are possibly peaceful ways of resolving this difficulty, and I do not think we had better make declarations about legislation at this point.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the county council does not respond to the representations of His Majesty's Government, action will be taken in accordance with the promise which was given by the Minister of Education when a similar Question was addressed to him last week relating to the teaching profession? Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer this afternoon that the policy of His Majesty's Government has changed from the policy which was announced last week?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. The Government adhere to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education made last week, but there are various ways of promoting wisdom, and we think that the method we are pursuing is better than engaging in threats and coercion at this stage.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the National Union of Teachers will appreciate the fact that His Majesty's Government have deprecated the action of the Durham County Council, since we believe that the record of the National Union of Teachers will ensure membership without any compulsion on the part of employers?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend I entirely agree with what he has said.

Dr. Hill: Does the reply mean that in the event of an officer of the Durham County Council being dismissed because he refuses to produce the necessary information—

Mr. Speaker: This Question has nothing to do with the London County Council. Mr. Eden.

Dr. Hill: With great respect, Sir, I said "Durham County Council," not "London County Council."

Mr. Eden: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply that some forms of discussion are proceeding between the Government and the Durham County Council? May we expect a further statement on the matter before the House rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I think that is possible, but I think the House would be wise to leave it to the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I may say so, I know something about the psychology of County Durham. If the House wants to head for a first-class row, that is one thing. I do not think it is wise. It is far better to settle this matter by kindness and persuasion rather than otherwise. If necessary, however, another statement will be made.

Dr. Hill: In view of the fact that the Durham County Council has reiterated its decision, despite the advice of His Majesty's Government, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's original reply means that in the event of a dismissal of any officer the Government will vigorously intervene?

Mr. Morrison: I think that if it gets to the point of operative action in that direction, the hon. Member is entitled to assume that the Government will take serious notice of that situation.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Lord President of the Council how many standards of wood have been used for the Festival of Britain.

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that the Question refers to the Festival of Britain Exhibition, and would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Astor), on 20th November.

Sir W. Smithers: Whatever the amounts are, in view of the fact that the official allocation for one house is 1·6 standards, will the right hon. Gentleman oblige by dividing the number by 1.6, and thus find out how many houses have been prevented from being built to satisfy the vanity of the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that, surprising as it may seem, the hon. Gentleman had a better education than I had. I cannot do the sum. No doubt, he can.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 750 standards of softwoods to which he referred in his reply on 20th November is the amount of timber required to build no fewer than 500 houses?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his figures, and, in any case, 25 per cent. of this timber will be recoverable.

Major H. Johnson: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now introduce legislation to give to the Brighton festival and the other provincial festivals under the auspices of the Festival Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain the same benefits and immunities as are envisaged in the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

Major Johnson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his reputation in the provinces needs a little redemption, and would he, therefore, this afternoon move an Amendment to the Bill on these lines?

Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee now.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Atrocities (Reports)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further reports the United Nations have received in respect of allegations of brutal behaviour and atrocities attributed to both North and South Korean forces; and what effective action in respect of this has been taken by the United Nations authorities in the areas now controlled by its Forces.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): No recent reports have been issued. The United Nations Commission has now arrived in Korea, and I hope that regular reports from them will be available shortly.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it from my hon. Friend's reply that no intervening action has taken place to try to pre-

vent this atrocious behaviour, the evidence of which is now overwhelming?

Mr. Davies: I have informed the House that His Majesty's Government have made representations to the Government of the Republic of Korea on this issue.

Mr. Sorensen: Could my hon. Friend say what reply he has had to those representations?

Mr. Davies: Yes. They also take a serious view of the situation, and are trying to prevent any vindictiveness occurring.

General MacArthur (U.N. Directives)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information he has received from the United Nations organisation as to the instructions which have been given to General MacArthur by the United Nations concerning the conduct of the campaign in Korea.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to General MacArthur as to bombing Chinese aerodromes, guns or other military concentrations from or by which the Forces of the United Nations are being attacked.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As my right hon. Friend said in the foreign affairs debate, the objectives of General MacArthur are no more and no less than the objectives of the United Nations.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, speaking yesterday, said that General MacArthur went beyond the objectives which we understood to be the objectives at the beginning of the affair? In that event, could my hon. Friend say what were those objectives to which the Minister of Defence refers? Who laid down those objectives and, if those objectives were changed, who changed them? If they were changed, were they changed with the approval of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Davies: It is not for me to comment on the speeches of right hon. colleagues of mine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but in reply to the questions which have been put by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I make it clear, Sir, that I am not seeking to inveigle my hon. Friend into any difficulties with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Davies: I hasten to reassure my hon. Friend that I was not taking offence in this matter in any way and that I was just about to reply to the questions he has put to me. I was going to say that the directives under which General MacArthur was operating in Korea are those which have been laid down by the United Nations. The actions he took in the first instance were under the Security Council Resolution of 7th July. On 7th October a Resolution was passed by the General Assembly and, subsequently, he has been acting in accordance with that Resolution.

Mr. Eden: In view of these questions I want only to make this clear—and it is of some importance. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed the statement which the Foreign Secretary made, that all General MacArthur's actions have been in accordance with directives issued by the United Nations? Is that correct?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I give that complete assurance to the House.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Under-Secretary agree with "The Times" of today that everything depends on whether we can hold a line in Korea? Does he also agree that no troops can be expected to hold a line if they are required to submit to Chinese attack without being allowed to hit back at Chinese bases?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. I cannot possibly comment in this House on the military situation in Korea.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Can the hon. Gentleman ensure that the answers he has given this afternoon will receive as much publicity abroad, as did the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend make one point perfectly clear? The Minister of Defence said that "we understood" what the objectives were. Are they not made clear? Are we not told precisely what the objectives are? Are we merely left to "understand"?

Mr. Davies: The objectives of the United Nations in repelling aggression in Korea are laid down in the Resolutions to which I have referred. These Resolutions are published in a White Paper on Korea which can be obtained in the Vote Office, and I suggest that my hon. Friend should obtain a copy of it.

Squadron Leader Burden: Will the Under-Secretary of State ensure that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is provided—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Refugees

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the plan for the allocation and settlement of refugees to the British, French and United States zones of Germany has been successful; and how many are still in encampments.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Of the 300,000 refugees of German origin whom it was planned 'to redistribute in the Federal Republic by the end of 1950, 217,500 have now been moved. The Federal Government estimate that the present number of German refugees in camps is about 300,000.

Mr. Sorensen: Could my hon. Friend say what action is being taken to assist the Federal Government to get rid of the remaining 300,000?

Mr. Davies: A target was fixed, and it is hoped that the original target of 300,000 will be achieved by 31st March, 1951, and that during 1952 the remaining refugees will be disposed of in this way. The occupying Powers, of course, give what help they can, but this is now the responsibility of the German Federal Republic.

Prisoners (Death Sentence)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Germans are still held in the British Zone by or on behalf of the occupation authorities and under sentence of death.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir.

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a large number of Germans are still, after a period of years, held in custody under sentence of death in Western Germany; and whether he will instruct the British High Commissioner to discuss this situation with the Allied Control Commission with a view to these prisoners being dealt with under existing Western German law, which does not recognise the death penalty.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am aware of these reports which do not, however, relate to the British zone. Each High Commissioner is responsible in his zone for these matters.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that we are part of the tri-partite High Commission for Western Germany, and in view of the very strong feeling which exists in Western Germany about this situation, is it not possible for the Minister to make representations to his colleagues about it?

Mr. Davies: I have looked into this most carefully, in view of my hon. Friend's question, but it is not within our competence to make any representations to the other Occupying Powers in this matter.

Nazi Victims (Compensation)

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the British zone of Germany towards the passing of legislation the purpose of which is to provide compensation for the victims of the National Socialist regime.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Discussions are at present taking place, both with the Federal Government and in the Inter-Governmental Study Group on Germany, on how to secure uniform legislation throughout the Federal Republic.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Restitution Bill before the North Rhine-Westphalen Parliament at the moment deals almost exclusively with people resident within that land, and will he use his influence to ensure that claims of people who are now British nationals will receive consideration?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that.

Mr. Janner: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is proposed to go beyond the limits at present provided by the Restitution Law of 1859 and whether, in the event of an award being given to a victim of Nazi aggression, provision will be made for him to obtain payment outside Germany?

Mr. Davies: I cannot answer detailed questions about this matter. At the present stage we are endeavouring to secure uniform legislation. When we have done so, the detailed matters can be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA

British Companies (Estates)

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the cases of British plantation companies operating in Indonesia which have been unable to obtain repossession of their estates, with consequent loss; and what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on their behalf.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir. The question has been taken up through the diplomatic channel.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Under-Secretary do everything possible to draw the attention of the Indonesian Government to the fact that it would be in their interests to get these estates working on an economic basis as soon as possible, as it would provide foreign exchange and employment for their own people?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. We have already done that.

Aircraft Facilities, Djakarta

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the Indonesian Government for the purpose of ensuring the safety of British aircraft landing at Djakarta airport in view of the disturbed situation there.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Landing facilities at Djakarta were temporarily restricted on the morning of 19th November. His Majesty's Ambassador at Djakarta is


being instructed to request the Indonesian Government to ensure that, in such circumstances, measures should be taken to safeguard landing facilities.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman fully appreciate that on the date he mentioned the aircraft was about to land and that it was only because the crew received a wireless message from the agent on the ground, to the effect that there was fighting, that the aircraft was diverted? Would he take steps to see that better arrangements are made in future?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. There was some misunderstanding at Djakarta on this occasion and the information which was given to the B.O.A.C. plane was not entirely in accordance with the conditions. Steps have been taken to prevent this occurring again.

FORMOSA (BRITISH SHIPS, ATTACKS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British ships have been attacked or intercepted by the National Government of Formosa since June of this year; and what has happened to the "Caduceus," her captain and her crew.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Four British ships have been intercepted by the Nationalists since June of this year and three attacked. After protests to the provincial authorities by His Majesty's Consul at Tamsui all have been released. On 18th September the s.s. "Caduceus" was released together with the British master and officers and crew, with the exception of 12 Chinese who were tried and convicted of offences under the law in force in Formosa.

CHINA (MISSIONARIES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent British and other subjects engaged in social and medical service and in missionary activity in China have had to discontinue or abandon their work owing to official action by the Chinese Government.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I cannot give my hon. Friend exact figures, but a number of British and other missionaries have left China because of the difficulties which they experienced in carrying on their work. Others are carrying on. The attitude of the local authorities varies in different parts of the country and I am unable to state the extent to which this may be influenced by the Central People's Government.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to take it that these officials and others who have left China have done so voluntarily, and not under pressure from Government authorities?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I am not aware of any cases where there has been pressure on the part of the Chinese authorities to force the expulsion of missionaries.

STRIKE, PARK ROYAL (POLICE INQUIRIES)

Mr. Lionel Heald: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to institute proceedings against the organisers and, particularly, the Chairman and Secretary of the Works Committee of Park Royal Vehicles, Ltd. of Abbey Road, N.W.10, to restrain them from conspiring against and unlawfully intimidating fellow trade unionists employed at the said works; and what other action he proposes to take to protect the rights and liberties of these men in the circumstances already notified to him.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Although I was aware of the strike by employees of Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd., and had directed police inquiries into certain aspects of that strike, I had not previously been informed of the matters to which the hon. and learned Member's Question relates. In so far as these matters concern industrial relations, they are, of course, ones for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but I shall cause police inquiries to be made so that I may consider whether any breach of the criminal law is involved.

Mr. Heald: While appreciating that the Attorney-General will require time to consider the matter, may I ask him if he will treat it as one of urgency in view of the fact that certain of the threats involved may lead to physical violence?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. I made the police inquiries the moment I received an indication of the hon. and learned Member's Question.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn, esquire, commonly called the honourable Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn, for Bristol, South-East.

The Reverend Llywelyn Williams for Abertillery.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Miss Irene Ward: On a matter of business, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady want to ask a question on business?

Miss Ward: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of it.

Miss Ward: I wanted to ask the Lord President a question on business. Would not that be in order?

Mr. Speaker: No. Let me explain that it is not customary for an ordinary Member to get up at any time at the end of Questions to ask questions on business. When business has started for the day very often one can ask the Minister responsible how far it is proposed to proceed with that business, and questions of that sort, but ordinary questions about business for the week are not permissible. I must have notice of them, and the Minister would expect notice of them, too. It is wrong for ordinary Private Members to get up at the end of Questions and ask questions on business. One occurred last Friday, which I allowed. It was my fault, and I do not propose to allow any more.

Miss Ward: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this matter of business arose only out of the Questions and answers today, and, therefore, it was not possible for me either to ask your permission or to give notice to the Minister concerned? I am in rather a quandary. Will you let me ask my question on business now? May I ask the Lord President of the Council—

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order for Private Members to ask business questions without notice.

Captain Crookshank: Further to that point, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of what the Manual of Procedure, paragraph 54, says?
No questions are taken after a quarter before four,"—
of course, it is a different time now, but it does not affect the substance—
except … (b) questions which have not appeared on the notice paper, but which are of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.

Mr. Speaker: And of an "urgent character."

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, "or."

Mr. Speaker: It has never been our custom for Private Members to get up at the end of Question Time and ask questions on business. One could imagine that if it were, half a dozen Members would be getting up and asking the Government about the business for the week or for the next week, or about their Motions on the Order Paper. It has never been our custom for Private Members to ask business questions, except on a Thursday when we do ask Questions about the following week's business.

Miss Ward: This is rather a matter of urgency, and, therefore, I think, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that it could come under the Standing Orders. May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether—[HON. MLMBERS: "No."] This is evidence that the Government are frightened.

Mr. Speaker: If a Member asks a question that is no reason why he should receive an answer.

Miss Ward: May I ask the Lord President of the Council, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Defence over the week-end, when we are to have the next statement on Korea?

Mr. Speaker: That, of course, is quite outside his competence now.

Orders of the Day — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th November.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—SUNDAY OPENING OF EXHIBITIONS AND GARDENS.)

3.40 p.m.

The Chairman: Miss Bacon.

Sir Richard Acland: On a point of order. I notice Major Milner that you have not selected the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends, in page 1, line 11, after "amusements" to insert:
on the second, third, fourth and fifth Sundays in any month, and with the amusements on the first Sunday of any month.
I appreciate that I cannot ask you to give the reason for that decision but I should like to say that, in so far as it is thought that the Committee has already decided the principle of that Amendment, to the extent to which hon. Members who supported the majority view said it was important to respect the rights of minorities, I hoped that an opportunity might be given for the majority to show whether they would put that principle into practice by respecting the rights of what has become a minority.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot allow that argument to affect my selection. I am sorry I have not been able to select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet, but it will of course be open to him to put it down again at a later stage of the Bill.

Miss Bacon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(e) the Land Travelling Exhibition (that is to say the travelling exhibition being held in the cities of Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham).
This Amendment is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House representing the four cities named. We have now spent two days discussing the Festival of Britain, but up to now we have discussed only what will happen in London. I would remind the Committee that London is not the only city in which there will be something in the nature of

an exhibition. There will be provincial exhibitions, one of which is the Land Travelling Exhibition, which is to visit the cities of Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham. We are told that it will be the world's biggest transported exhibition; it will be transported in lorries and will contain 5,000 exhibits.
Since a charge of 2s. is to be made to enter this Exhibition, I assume that if we in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham or Nottingham open the Exhibition on Sundays we shall be liable to have action taken against us by the Lord's Day Observance Society. This Amendment is designed to prevent such action being taken by giving to the four cities in question the immunity that has already been given to London by reading this Bill a Second time. I believe that we in these four cities should have the same immunity as that given to London.
3.45 p.m.
I should like to make clear that this Land Travelling Exhibition is not in any way a fun fair. I understand it is an educational exhibition, the same as that to be found on the South Bank. Whereas the Exhibition in London is to be open for five months, the Exhibition in the provinces will be in only one place at a time for periods varying from 10 days to three weeks, so that the people of these provincial cities will have only a very short time in which to see it. The effect of this Amendment will not be to make opening obligatory in these cities, but to make opening permissive if the cities wish the Exhibition to be opened on Sundays. We cannot say at this time whether or not there will be a great demand to see the Exhibition. It may be that there will not be. On the other hand, there may be a great demand, on the part not only of the people living in these cities but of people living in the surrounding areas.
Everybody knows that the City of Leeds is a centre for the West Riding of Yorkshire, just as Manchester is a centre for the industrial area of Lancashire. People get home from work late at night, and it may not be possible for all those who wish to see the Exhibition to see it during the evenings. If this Amendment is not accepted, the majority of those who wish to see the Exhibitions will be able to do so only on Saturdays, and anybody who knows conditions in our


provincial cities on Saturdays will appreciate that we have to contend with very great crowds, coupled with the added difficulty of transport on Saturday afternoons, when work-people and shoppers all want to get home at the same time. I, therefore, suggest that the Committee accept this Amendment in order to make it permissive for those cities who wish to do so, to open the Land Travelling Exhibition on Sundays.
I do not think that this Amendment will cause any controversy. Indeed, when it was made known in Leeds a reporter of the "Yorkshire Evening Post" interviewed the leaders of the various religious denominations. In answer to a question whether or not he objected to this Amendment, a vicar of Leeds said:
To that part of the Exhibition which is definitely educational and on a par with other serious exhibitions I would have no objection on principle. If there were any suggestion of an amusement park being opened on Sunday I would strongly object.
A Nonconformist minister said that he would have no objection to this; that he would only object to a fun fair. A Roman Catholic priest said, when asked the question:
Provided people fulfil their Sunday obligations I feel that the rest of the time may he used for relaxation, but I do not think I would he in favour of anything like Coney Island opening on Sundays.
I am told that this Land Travelling Exhibition has nothing in common with Coney Island, but is completely educational.
I understand that there is some reluctance on the part of the Government to accept the Amendment because they are rather timid about legislating for what is to happen on Sundays north of London. I ask them not to be so timid about this. I believe that the people of these cities would like to see this educational Exhibition, and, for many, Sunday will be the only day on which they can see it. Many people who could see it on Saturdays will, I am quite sure, be deterred by the great crowds who are about on Saturdays. In moving this Amendment, I am asking only for the same privileges and the same immunities to be given to our provincial cities as this Committee has already given to London.

Mr. Ian L. On-Ewing: I think we should be given rather

more information than has yet been made available as to what is to be contained in this Land Travelling Exhibition, because it is difficult to arrive at a fair decision without knowing whether it will contain side shows, and all sorts of things like that. At an earlier stage of the Bill it may have been taken for granted—though I am not in a position to refute it—that the Exhibition on the South Bank, for instance, would only constitute something similar to exhibitions which are already open on Sundays, in museums and like places.
Some of us were a little surprised to realise that if these exhibitions were the same as or similar to those in museums on Sundays, so many people would be involved in the showing of them. As I said at an earlier date, I was quite prepared to consider the question of the South Bank Exhibition separately, if one had been allowed to do so on the Second Reading of the Bill. Equally, on the Committee stage of the Bill, I am perfectly open-minded as to whether I should vote in support of the Amendment or against it, but I cannot possibly exercise that vote until I know what is to be thrown open for exhibition on Sundays in the provinces.
If the Travelling Exibitions are similar to those which are to be opened on Sundays on the South Bank, and go no further, I cannot see how in principle one can vote against that, as the House as a whole has already granted that privilege. I should like to hear more particulars of those exhibitions from the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should also like to know a little more about it, because all Members of Parliament these days receive a great quantity of paper and they are not able to read all of it. I take it that this is not a travelling, exhibition but an exhibition in a fixed building of goods brought by rail or road from other places where they have been exhibited in fixed buildings. I do not know what is to be the character of the Exhibition. Is it going to be an exhibition in caravans or is a great public hall in Leeds to be placed at its disposal? Is it to consist of pictures, mammoth skeletons or what? We ought to be told more precisely what is the standard of this Exhibition. My general view on this matter is


exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing). We ought to be given a little more precise information about it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think that it would be as well if I intervened at this stage to say a few words about this exhibition. It will be held in Manchester from 3rd to 26th May in the City Exhibition Hall in Deansgate. From 23rd June to 14th July it will be held in Leeds in a place called the tented structure, Woodhouse Moor. It will be held in Birmingham from 4th August to 25th August in Bingley Hall, and in Nottingham in the tented structure at Broadmarsh from 15th September to 6th October. That, I think, describes the places in which the Exhibition will be held. It will be moved by convoys of lorries from one centre to another and it will contain some 5,000 exhibits selected chiefly as outstanding examples of industrial design.
It will not include anything in the nature of an amusements park. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) said, and I am bound to say that there would be very great administrative difficulties in the way of carrying out the Amendment which she moved, if it were to be incorporated in the Bill. The Festival authorities report that it would present difficult administrative problems. There would have to be an increase in the locally engaged staff of approximately 100 at each centre, and no financial provision has been made for such a possibility.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Why?

Mr. Ede: I am told that it would be so. I do not imagine that my hon. Friend, in view of the two speeches which he made last week on two separate days, wants to impose a seven-day week on anybody. Let us face up to this. If these places are open on a Sunday it will involve—if people are to have a six-day week—the employment of additional people not necessarily for the seventh day but during the week so that no one shall work more than a six-day week.

Mr. Hale: I gathered from the opening speech that it was not the desire to open on an additional day but merely to

protect the opening on an additional day. The Chairman of Festival Gardens Limited gave an undertaking in the debate in which I did not speak, that he would so arrange the rota that no one would be compelled to work on a Sunday against his will, but everyone would have his week's work.

Mr. Ede: That was in regard to the Festival Gardens in Battersea, where all the arrangements have been on the basis of a six-day week. I am trying to put the House into possession of the facts. I have not heard anything that indicated that there was a desire that the Exhibition should be closed for one week day or that it should be open on a Sunday. That, I think, is something which has only occurred to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). I am informed that if we are to open this Exhibition on a Sunday and have normal working arrangements, it will involve an additional staff of 100 persons. The estimate of 100 may be subject to some analysis. I understand that it is the unanimous wish of the House that no one should be compelled to work seven days a week but that there should be a six-day week. If it is to be open on the seventh day, there must be some additional labour employed, and our estimate is that it will be 100 persons.

Mr. Wyatt: I take it that it is not suggested that it would be impossible to engage 100 persons. If that is so, why should the provinces be discriminated against when London is not being discriminated against?

Mr. Ede: The whole idea of the provincial Exhibition was based on the understanding we have had from the Festival authorities that there would be no opening in the provinces on Sundays. I am informed also that an increased strain would be placed on the headquarters staff appointed to the Exhibition. We have already in the provinces made one concession with regard to opening which, I am quite certain, has the support of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. We have already agreed to special opening hours for school parties from 9.30 to 11 o'clock in the morning on Mondays to Fridays. I am also informed by the Festival authorities that this would have been less readily agreed to had it been


thought that there was any likelihood of this additional strain of Sunday opening being put on the organisation.
In addition to the Travelling Exhibition, there is the Ship Exhibition. I am told that it was proposed to extend this to the ship Exhibition, and if we agreed to this on the Committee stage we should be involved in it on the Report stage. The staff difficulty would be much more acute in that case. Therefore, the Government do not feel, in view of the reasons which I have given, and the fact that this is now a very late stage in which to attempt to alter the arrangements, that they can accept the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where else the Travelling Exhibition is visiting, other than the four cities he has mentioned, and also what places the ship exhibition will be visiting?

Mr. Ede: I understand that these are the only place where the land exhibition will go. I do not think a ship can go to those places. The Ship Exhibition will be confined to the seaports. I cannot at this stage say which towns they are, but I will try to find out and let the right hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Pannell: Some one asked me after the Division on Tuesday whether I had voted for the superior humbugs or the united hypocrites, and now I am wondering for whom I did vote after the specious argument we have heard from my right hon. Friend. What did the Government try to get us to do last week? They tried to get us to vote for the fun fair.

Mr. Ede: The Government left it entirely to a free vote of the House. It was agreed, as a matter of fact, that there should be no disclosure as to which side individual Ministers were taking. My right hon. Friend put both arguments in his speech, and we then voted according to our consciences. The Lord President voted one way, and I voted the other.

Mr. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Whips are on today?

Mr. Pannell: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said. Let us follow this up. Let us assume that the point of view of the Lord President had prevailed. In

that case, we should have had a fun fair opening on Sundays in London. Would the right hon. Gentleman then have got up today and used these arguments? Would he have said that what London was to have was not to be extended to these four cities? Does this not show that the people who said that this was a stunt that applied to London but not to the provinces were right?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Which way did my hon. Friend vote?

Mr. Pannell: I voted against the Lord President. I made it perfectly clear that whatever was done for London should be extended throughout the provinces. There should not be one law for London and one for the provinces. This argument about a few extra people having to be employed did not seem to have a great deal of force when we were discussing this matter before. If it is reasonable for London to have an exhibition on the South Bank, it is also reasonable that the provinces should have this miniature exhibition.

Mr. Summers: Are we to understand from this argument that, because London is not to have the fun fair in Battersea Park on Sunday, the fun fair which is normally opened on Sundays in Manchester should be closed?

Mr. Pannell: I voted for the Exhibition to be opened.

Mr. Nabarro: Why?

Mr. Pannell: I know why I voted. It is perfectly reasonable that if the Exhibition to be held in London is to be open on Sundays, the Exhibition in the provinces should also be open on Sundays. I fail to understand Members who want to use this as an opportunity for obstruction. What we are asking for is very different from what happens in Weston-super-Mare. This is almost a ladylike exhibition compared with what happens in the constituency of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing).

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I entirely agree, but I understood that we were discussing a travelling exhibition. I made it clear that I had an open mind whether it should be included in this Bill or not. I cannot see how Weston-super-Mare comes into the argument.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member had a very closed mind on the previous occasion, and he cannot open it at this stage. I ask the Committee to be reasonably consistent on this matter, and to say that what is good for London is equally good for the provinces, bearing in mind that the mayors, town clerks, religious leaders and others of these provincial towns have asked for this. If Members believe in local democracy, they will vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Shepherd: I am very disappointed with the reply the Home Secretary has made to the Amendment. I object to Members talking about concessions for the provinces, as if the provinces were an inferior appendage of London and deserving to be patronised by the Treasury Bench. It is absolutely right that if the Exhibition in London is to be open on Sundays, the same privilege should be accorded to the provinces with their Exhibition. By that I do not mean that the Exhibition should necessarily be open on Sundays, but that the provinces should have the right to open it if they so desire.
All this Amendment seeks to do is to give the provinces the right to open the Travelling Exhibition. We are not saying that every Exhibition should be open on every Sunday in all provincial towns. All we are seeking to do is to remove the hindrance to opening the Exhibition, namely, the activities of the common informer. There is no conceivable reason why the right hon. Gentleman should deny to the provinces what is rightly accorded to London. He made no attempt to establish the particular right of London, but merely trotted out these administrative difficulties in the case of the provinces. I do not know how many people are involved, but I cannot think that this is an insuperable obstacle and a reason for not accepting the Amendment.
I am convinced that there are many people to be found in the local authorities, people with good will and civic conscience, who will voluntarily give their services to enable a rota system to be worked so that the Exhibition may be open on Sundays.

Mr. Mellish: It has also to be borne in mind that more money may be taken on Sundays.

Mr. Shepherd: That is so. This is a question of the provinces being able to decide what they should do and of safeguarding the interest of the workers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about this Amendment, because the people in the provinces will take the view that there is one law for London and another for them. I see no justification, from the point of view of principle or anything else, for preventing the provinces from doing what is properly allowed to London.

Mr. Shurmer: I do not want to take up much time, but since Birmingham has been mentioned, I want to say a word. If there were any question of the opening of an amusement park I am confident that Birmingham would not agree to it. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), who said that there should not be one law for London and one for the provinces. What is the position? It has already been said by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), that there are many thousands of people in the provinces who would be unable to travel down to London to see the Exhibition. Birmingham is the centre for the Black Country and caters for three or four million people. It would be impossible for all those people to see the Travelling Exhibition if it were open only on six days a week. The small number of men and women who will be required to do an extra day's work if this Exhibition is open on Sunday would be easily found. I feel confident that the religious bodies of the City of Birmingham would have no objection to the opening of the Travelling Exhibition from lunchtime onwards on Sundays, and I hope the House will support the Amendment.

Mr. Osbert Peake: As one of the representatives of the City of Leeds which is mentioned in the Amendment, I should like to intervene for a few moments. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), invited me at an early stage to add my name to this Amendment. I told her I was favourable, but my native caution compelled me to wait longer to see what the Travelling Exhibition comprised before I came to a final conclusion about the Amendment. We have now been told by the Home Secretary that the Exhibi-


tion is to contain, as its main feature, 5,000 examples of industrial design.
It certainly crossed my mind that this Travelling Exhibition might comprise fashion exhibits, which would include one of those competitions entered for by young ladies in exiguous bathing costumes in order to win such a title as "Miss Festival 1951." I hardly think that young ladies attired for such a competition would come within the definition of the term used by the Home Secretary, "all outstanding examples of industrial design." It would appear, therefore, that the Exhibition is not to contain anything which might be in any way offensive to any of my constituents.
The Home Secretary's case against the Amendment was singularly poor. The first point was that there would have to be 100 additional persons employed upon the staff. I personally would far rather see the Travelling Exhibition closed on a weekday, say a Monday, when people ought to be going to their work and to be opened on Sunday when people are off their work and want something amusing to go and see. Leeds on a Sunday is a singularly dull place. There is a great deal to be said, in my view, for encouraging people to go to their work on five or six days of the week and to see this Travelling Exhibition on Sunday afternoons. I do not think that any case can be made against this Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
I very much hope that the spokesmen from the Government Bench are going to allow a free vote upon this matter. There will be a free vote on this side of the Committee. I could not make out during the Home Secretary's speech whether he was speaking for the Government, for himself or for the Festival authorities. In my opinion we should have a free vote upon this matter, and I hope the Lord President of the Council will concede what is evidently the general desire of all parts of the Committee.

Sir R. Acland: I should like to support the main argument offered by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), namely, that if this Amendment is carried it does not compel the Festival authorities to open on Sundays, whereas if it is not carried they will be absolutely prevented from doing so by fear of the common

informer, whose activities we are all agreed are deplorable. If the Amendment is passed it will be open to the Festival authorities to negotiate with the municipal authorities of the great cities mentioned and see if an arrangement can be come to.
I am a little bit suspicious of the figure of 100 extra workers required for Sundays if this Travelling Exhibition is opened. No doubt somebody supplied my right hon. Friend with the figures, but it seems to me that for one extra day there would be something like 16⅔ per cent. of the numbers involved if a seventh day were worked. Calculating from this it would appear that 600 is the number of people required to keep this exhibition open in these cities. I can hardly believe it would be so many as that. I therefore hope that there will be an opportunity for the municipal authorities and the Exhibition authorities to examine this matter.
I hope that this Exhibition is going to be extremely popular, and that gives me an opportunity of saying something which I was not able to say at Question time when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) were taking sniping shots at the Exhibition. If they continue to take these sniping shots some of us on this side of the Committee will be tempted—I do not say we shall yield—to take credit for the Exhibition if it turns out to be popular.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting as part of his argument that 750 standards of soft wood are going to be used in the provincial parts of this exhibition, namely, Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham.

Sir R. Acland: I was making a perfectly proper point, that if any hon. Member opposite wishes to take sniping shots at this Exhibition week after week at Question time in this House, then some of us on this side may be tempted to take some credit for the Exhibition as a whole if it turns out to he extraordinarily popular. That is only a fair warning to those weekly snipers, who have been at it for long enough. The relevance of this Amendment is that that part of the Exhibition, like all other parts, will be extremely popular and that we ought at least to open the door to the possibility of its being


available, either on Sunday instead of on some other weekday, or on Sunday as well as on some other weekday.

Mr. Ede: I have listened to the course of this debate. When I spoke previously, I was mainly engaged in trying to give the Committee the information for which two hon. Members had asked, so that they could direct their minds to what was actually involved. I, for one, am certainly not in favour of including anything which would appear to indicate one law for London and another law for the rest of the country, although I am not, and never have been, a Londoner.
I was a little surprised at the line adopted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake). I should have thought that while the young lady who excited his wrath and perturbation might perhaps not be a suitable exhibit for Sunday, such articles as she might wear, scanty as they are, would be an example of industrial design in the textile world, and that while the right hon. Gentleman might not see the lady he might see those articles that obscured the lady.
My right hon. Friends and myself have listened to the debate. We recognise that there is a strong desire in many parts of the Committee that this Amendment should be carried and that arrangements should be made for operating it, if possible. While we are willing to accept the Amendment, we cannot undertake that in all or in any of the places concerned it might be possible to operate it. We do not accept the Amendment and, at the same time, say, "We will accept it, but nothing is going to happen." There will have to be a bona fide attempt made to see whether in some at least of these places, if not in all, it can be operated. It can be accepted in the spirit of the speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), who said that if it were put into the Bill it would permit us to do it but would not compel us. We shall be willing to accept the Amendment and we shall do our best to meet the spirit which exists in the Committee, although it may be that, owing to administrative difficulties in one or more of the places concerned, it might not be possible to carry it into full effect.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Home Secretary has shown remarkable understanding of the feelings of the Committee and has

given way to what amounts to considerable pressure from his own benches and from those of His Majesty's Opposition. His acceptance of the Amendment raises certain very definite questions. Do I understand from him that if this concession is made by the Government—as we desire equity betwen London and the provinces—the same concession will be made to the Ship Exhibition? If that be not the case, if we were to put down an Amendment at a later stage concerning the Ship Exhibition would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen give us an assurance that the same principle would apply as much to the great cities, presumably Edinburgh being among them, which are to be visited by the Ship Exhibition, as to those cities that we have been discussing? Otherwise, there will be a great lack of equity and great discrepancy between the cities visited by the Ship Exhibition and the cities visited by the Land Travelling Exhibition.
The purpose of my rising is to prove whether the Government have given way on this Amendment in panic without having thought of all the principles involved, or whether they have a concerted policy for dealing not only with the inland cities but with the cities to be visited by the Ship Exhibition. We shall naturally want to pursue at a later stage this matter of the cities to be visited by the Ship Exhibition.
Another point is that the Amendment deals only with certain major cities in England and not with other parts of the country represented by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. For example, I represent a remote rural constituency in North Essex where there is as much local fervour as there is in the great cities of Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham. We have devoted our minds in local committees to furthering the interests of the Festival of Britain. I want to know whether towns like Colchester, which is to be the centre of our part of the world, will be able, if they so desire, to open this form of exhibition on Sunday. There will be small examples of the main Exhibition up and down the country. Will facilities be given by the Government, by putting down Amendments at a later stage to this effect?
If they are conceding this principle for four cities, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham, and not for other places, I fail to see on what principle the


Government are proceeding. They have had ample time to consider this matter. Why should they not concede this principle for places like Colchester, Saffron Walden and Chelmsford, which are making local efforts? It is true that the small efforts that we are making in the County of Essex may be very limited. They may not have the grandeur and splendour of 5,000 exhibits of industrial design, because our resources would not run to it, but it may be convenient to open such small local exhibits on Sunday.
I should very much value the views of the Home Secretary in order to know whether, if we agree to this Amendment now we are prejudicing the same principle in connection with the Ship Exhibition and with local exhibitions organised under the aegis of the Festival of Britain in provincial centres.

Mr. Norman Smith: While I welcome the Home Secretary's concession, I could have wished that his warning had not been quite so emphatic. I should like to go back to one thing that he said earlier in the debate, which was that it was rather late in the day to raise these matters because they had all been worked out. My right hon. Friend cannot treat the House of Commons like that. The concession having been made, we do hope that it will be carried out wholeheartedly in the spirit in which it was asked for, even if it is late in the day and if everything has been worked out. We hope that effect will be given not only to the concession but to the spirit of the concession.

Mr. Ede: I thought I said in my first speech that if we conceded this Amendment we should be in great difficulties about the Ship Exhibition, where I understand the administrative and staff difficulties are much more acute than with the Exhibition in the four cities that have been named. I am told that the staff are recruited on a permanent basis, and will travel aboard ship in cabin and lifeboat accommodation which will not permit any increase in the permanent staff. [Interruption.] The Exhibition will be on the ship. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing) was one of the most strong opponents of the whole business in the Second Reading debate. He must forgive me if I say that I am rather suspicious of his desire to extend generally the principle to which it was under-

stood he was totally opposed on the Second Reading.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing rose—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am trying to reply to what was put forward by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I rather share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that as far as we have gone this is not a concession but is placing these four provincial cities in the same position as London, but the right hon. Gentleman himself referred continuously to it as a concession. We are getting a very long way when we are asked to extend it to every exhibition which may be opened and said to be in connection with the Festival of Britain. While I have no doubt that in Essex, with its strong Puritan tradition, nothing objectionable would be done, I could think of some other parts of the country where a general approval given by this House in the way suggested might lead to some things which even the right hon. Gentleman would not think quite fitting for Sunday.
As to the Ship Exhibition, I am advised by those who are responsible that the administrative difficulties are very great indeed. I do not want to do anything which might still further arouse the suspicion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. N. Smith). What I said with regard to our effort to meet the Amendment if it was carried was said with an intention of carrying it out, and I should not like to get out of a difficulty merely by saying "Add the ship, add Colchester, add Saffron Walden and add things generally" and then find in a few weeks' time that it was quite impossible to carry out what might be the wish of the House. There will be further stages of the Bill and if the matter is raised again we shall then have to meet it, but I have agreed to accept the Amendment in the spirit of the Debate, and I hope that the Committee will feel that that is sufficient for this afternoon.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman something for clarification? I understood his argument about the provinces to be that so far as the four cities are concerned, the Government can control the nature of the Exhibition and that so far as that is possible, the Government would therefore be sure of


the nature of what is shown, whereas in the case of the other provincial centres it would not be possible so to be certain. In those circumstances the point I made in regard to the provincial centres is met by the right hon. Gentleman's observation.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: In regard to the shipborne Exhibition, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise means of communication between ship and shore. I imagine that this must have been worked out, otherwise there would be no visitors to the Exhibition on the ship. If visitors are able to visit the ship to see the Exhibition, surely it would be possible for additional staff to be carried between the shore and the ship and these need not be ship-borne like the original staff. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter because it is entirely a matter of an Exhibition under the direct control of the Government and the Festival authorities.
As regards any inconsistency on the part of any hon. Member, I made it quite clear on Second Reading that if I could remove the obnoxious element of the fun fair from the Bill I would give fair consideration to the Exhibition itself on the South Bank.

Mr. H. Morrison: Mr. H. Morrison indicated dissent.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, it is in HANSARD. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, for it is clearly stated in HANSARD, and I am applying exactly the same principle this afternoon in considering these other exhibitions.

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to what the hon. Member has just said, we have taken note of it and we shall keep it in mind, but I am bound to say that the more I listen to the hon. Gentleman the less I can understand him. He moved the complete rejection of the Bill on Second Reading in a 40-minute speech, which was longer than I took in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He really cannot have the best of both worlds. The House of Commons is always interesting because it reserves the right to do the lay after tomorrow the very opposite of what it did the day before yesterday, but the hon. Gentleman really is the limit. If his view was that he wanted to stop the amusement part he could have voted for the Second Read-

ing and voted against the amusement part during the Committee stage. If I described the hon. Gentleman in the words that are in my mind I should be out of order.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should most certainly not have been following the procedure advised by the right hon. Gentleman if, thinking as I did that the Bill contained an obnoxious principle, I had not attacked it on the first occasion. That I proceeded to do, namely, on Second Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "dancing," to the end of line 30.
I believe that this Amendment is necessary in order to make the Bill read intelligibly. It is entirely a drafting Amendment.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): There is, I think, a good deal of misunderstanding about subsection (4) and the effects of the decision which the Committee took last week. I am not quite sure what view the Committee will wish to take about the Amendment which the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), has described as purely a drafting Amendment. It is possible that the Committee may take the view that there is something a little more than drafting in it. We should like to take the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
Except for the Exhibition and the Festival Gardens, the Festival of Britain was thrown back upon the ordinary law in regard to Sunday observance by the vote which we took last week. The ordinary law in regard to Sunday observance permits cinemas, concerts, botanical gardens, museums and matters of that kind, but, broadly speaking, nothing beyond that which is expressly permitted under one statute or another.
The purpose of including subsection (4) in the Bill was to restrict the nature of the amusements which would have been permissible had the fair ground been left in as part of the Bill and part of the Festival Gardens. It was to have been—as I ventured to say, and I have been very much taken to task for it since—an austerity fair ground, one without any of these other things which it might have been thought on one view of what the Bill


enacted would have been permitted once the fair ground was permitted. Now that the fairground is out of the Bill much of the point of subsection (4) has really gone. The things which it purports to prohibit are already prohibited under the existing law and there is really no advantage in saying so twice.
All the first part of the subsection, referring to theatres, dancing and so on, is innocuous. It bites on something which is already illegal, apart from the permissive effect of Clause 1 (1, b), and there is no harm in biting twice on something which is illegal. The words which the Amendment proposes to leave out are a little different. As they stand, the words after "dancing" in line 27 are not very inapt. They apply only to the Festival Gardens, and as amusements are to be prohibited in the Festival Gardens it would at first sight be quite inapt to refer to amusements being authorised by Festival Gardens Limited, the Lord President of the Council, or anyone else, because they are all to be illegal.
This is the point I want to put to the Committee in order that hon. Members may have the opportunity of deciding what they really want to do about this. It is becoming apparent that some hon. Members feel they have perhaps gone a little far in throwing the Festival right back on to strict observance of the law as laid down under the Sunday Observance Act, 1780. Some hon. Members may think there is no particular harm in having such a thing as a boating lake at the Exhibition even on a Sunday afternoon. As a matter of fact there is a boating lake in Battersea Park now, there is one on the Serpentine, and all over the country boating lakes are operated perfectly legally because, in the ordinary case, the charge is made for the use of the boat and not for admission to the place where the boat is used. Now under the arrangements for the Festival Gardens, strictly speaking the boating lake would be illegal—

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that the boating lake is outside the Festival Gardens anyhow?

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the proposal boating lake is the existing one. Some hon. Members may think there is no harm in a boating lake. Other hon. Members may think there is

no harm in having a Punch and Judy show—with the script, no doubt, carefully vetted and suitable for children on a Sunday afternoon; or that there would be no harm in having a children's corner or a grotto or the illuminations and decorations that are part of the Festival Gardens. But on a strict interpretation of the Sunday Observance Act all these would probably have to be closed down because, as amusements, they would be infringing that Act. If the present view of the Committee is that it might be appropriate to have that kind of thing—a boating lake, a Punch and Judy show, and so on—left available, I would suggest to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that he should withdraw his Amendment, or to the Committee that it should negative the Amendment.
It is for the Committee to decide what attitude it wants to take up. Does it want to close down on everything, or does it want to leave the obviously innocent things, which are sometimes a normal feature of any park, but to close down the swings and the roundabouts and that kind of entertainment? If that is what the Committee wants to do, then by adopting a subsequent Amendment on the Order Paper substituting the Minister for Festival Gardens Limited, the Minister would accept responsibility to the House for authorising a few obviously innocent attractions. We should have to consider the matter further on Report in order to see whether anything more would have to be put into the Bill in order to permit the exercise by the Minister of the authorisation that the Bill previously contained with reference to the fair ground.
If, however, the view of the Committee is that we should, so to speak, save something out of the wreck—the boating lake, the children's corner and conceivably the Punch and Judy show, though I do not know what view will be taken of this last by the Sabbatarians—then I suggest that the words be left in the Clause on that basis and that we should consider the matter further on Report. If, on the other hand, the Committee feels that everything ought to be stopped—the children's corner, the Punch and Judy show, the boating lake and all these incidental amusements—the logical thing is to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Croydon, East.

4.45 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the goldfish have been removed from Battersea Park, and can he give an assurance that they will be returned?

Sir H. Williams: I think we are in rather a mess on this, if I may put it that way. It is obvious that those words do not make any sense in the light of the decision taken last week. As far as I can make out, as Clause 1 now stands it could not authorise any amusement at all. The Lord President could not, the Festival Gardens Ltd. could not. Therefore, the words having ceased to have any meaning, I moved that they should be left out. However, if it is desired to recast the Bill to some extent in view of what the Attorney-General has said about certain minor things, which no one can object to, not being possible without alteration to earlier parts of this Clause, I am quite willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: As far as we are concerned on this side of the Committee, we are quite prepared to reconsider the matter if it is the view of the Committee that some of the more innocent things should be allowed. The hon. Member for Croydon, East said there were some things to which no person could object. I am not at all certain about that in this context, but it may be that there are, and if that is the sense of the Committee I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn and that we should put down something on Report, if we can find a suitable form of words, which would authorise, apart from the swings and roundabouts, the kind of things I have mentioned.
However, we must have some indication from the Committee whether that is the wish of hon. Members. If the Committee wants to go the whole hog and exclude everything, then the Amendment is the logical course to take. If, on the other hand, the Committee wants to retain some things which are technically amusements or entertainments, and so forbidden by the Sunday Observance Act, but which are relatively innocent, like the boating lake and the Punch and Judy show, then we will do our best to implement the sense of the Committee.

But we should like to have the view of the Committee about it.
The Amendment is the logical consequence of the decision we took last week, and if the hon. Member for Croydon, East, had not put down his Amendment on the Order Paper, I would have suggested it myself in order to carry our conclusion to its logical consequence. But logical consequences are often things to be avoided like the plague, and it may be that it would be the sense of the Committee that some things should be capable of being retained subject to the approval of the Minister responsible and answerable to the House.

Mr. Summers: On a point of order, Major Milner. May I ask your guidance in regard to the immediate procedure? If the Amendment standing in my name to line 29 is not called, there may be no opportunity for some of us to make comments unless we make them on this Amendment before it is withdrawn. May we assume, therefore, that the subsequent Amendment will be called and thus allow the withdrawal of this Amendment to be made so much quicker?

The Chairman: If the words which have been moved to be left out remain in the Bill, I should propose to call the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers).

Mr. Summers: But I understand that there is a possibility of this Amendment being withdrawn, Major Milner.

The Chairman: In that event, as I have indicated, the words proposed to be left out would remain and I should call the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have had no warning of this problem and should not like to give any final answer today. We must make it clear, first, that the Committee decided by a very large majority not to have what may be described as an amusement park or fun fair open on Sunday. It is quite clear, therefore, that at later stages of the Bill, in any decisions reached by the Government, we must adhere to that decision of the Committee; otherwise we should not only do violence to the decision that has been reached, but we should also cause immense ripples again to spread throughout the country—and that would be very undesirable. So we may take it, then, that if the Amend-


ment is withdrawn nothing which the Government may propose at a later stage will do violence to the definite decision already taken by the Committee in regard to an amusement park or fun fair.
Now the Attorney-General raises another issue. He asks whether we want the Bill looked at again between now and the next stage, and for the Government then to come forward and make a statement and suggest any recasting of the Bill that is necessary to enable the Government to propose that certain amenities may be included in the gardens as apart from the fun fair. It would certainly be reasonable to allow the Government to look at the Bill again in the light of the decision taken by the Committee which alters the exact form of the Bill, and to come before us and make a further statement at the next stage, which, we understand, will be on Thursday next.
I should not like to give any final assurance to the right hon. Gentleman today. I would only go as far as this. I realise from my connection with the Council that those who are responsible are anxious about the gardens being open and payment having to be made for entrance into the gardens, whereas people who sit on the other side of the fence in Battersea Park can glance over the gardens or the river without making any payment at all, and would probably feel very nearly as happy as those who pay for admission. I can therefore say that on a Sunday afternoon it is very tempting for what I have previously described as the promoters to rack their brains as to how they can make the gardens attractive enough to justify the expense of going in, now that by decision of the Committee there is to be no fun fair.
Any attraction in these gardens which made them more worth while going into than sitting in Battersea Park outside would, naturally, be reasonable, but any attraction which drew upon it the sort of criticism which the fun fair or amusement park drew upon itself would be illegitimate. Quite apart from the illegality which the Lord President has mentioned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that the Bill might take a form which might bring certain other attractions out of the danger of the Sunday Observance Acts.
It is there that we begin to be a little alarmed, because if we are to have attrac-

tions in these gardens which are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Sunday Observance Acts, it seems to me that we are doing violence to the decision which we have already taken not to have a fun fair. That is why the Government should be extremely careful in re-examining this matter. Although this is entirely a free matter on this side, if my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) desires to withdraw his Amendment, I would personally advise him to do so, provided that the Government understand that if they go so far in proposing amenities in the new gardens as to upset the conscience of the Committee, which has already taken a decision, they will find themselves faced with opposition. If, on the other hand, they simply make proposals which we think, on consideration, are reasonable, we shall be as sweet-minded and reasonable as possible.
If the Government think that this is a sufficient indication to them, I should be ready to let the matter go like this, but I really cannot take the question any further because I cannot here and now, without consideration, without a plan, without a map, draw a line between what amusement is covered by the Sunday Observance Acts and is regarded as a fun or amusement, and what diversion would be regarded as normal by public opinion outside. I therefore advise the Government to go very cautiously, yet to make the gardens as attractive as possible without causing anybody to err over the line and towards too much fun.

The Attorney-General: May I intervene again? The alternatives before the Committee are first a rigid application of the Sunday Observance Acts, and second either some catalogue of exceptions such as we have already included in the Bill—the Bill embodies exceptions both to the letter and, as some people think, to the spirit of the Sunday Observance Acts—or a discretion in a Minister answerable to Parliament.
What might be done—we have no desire to do it unless the Committee wishes it; it only increases in some ways the administrative difficulty—would be to say in Clause 1 (1. b)
of the Festival Gardens, with such amenities as may he authorised by the Lord President of the Council but without the amusements
"The amusements," as already defined in the Bill, means:


any swings or roundabouts or other fairground amusements.
That would leave the Lord President free to say that the boating lake was all right, and that the Punch and Judy show and the children's playground were all right. If that is what the Committee desires, I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn and we would insert some form of words like that, although, obviously, I am not now tying myself down to the exact form. If the Committee wants to apply the Sunday observance law without any further exceptions beyond those which the Bill already makes, then the Amendment should be carried.

Sir H. Williams: My knowledge of the law is only as I have learnt it from some years in this place, but it seems to me that if these words stay in, they would not make sense and would have no operative effect—that is why I proposed to leave them out; but if leaving them in pro tem will facilitate the researches of the Attorney-General, I am quite glad once again to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. James Hudson: Before a decision is taken about leaving these words out, I cannot refrain from making a comment upon the gigantic humbug in which the Committee is now engaged in deciding what shall be the innocent amusements to be allowed, and those that ought not to be allowed on Sundays. Perhaps those who engaged in the majority decision last Tuesday might consult Mr. Martin for example, as to whether the new set of proposals which apparently we are willing to accept as doing no violence to our decision last Tuesday, and as doing no violence to our Sabbatarian conscience, would be within the general will and desire of the organisation that has had so much to do with pushing us into the decision that we took last week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members may call out "Rubbish," but we are all very well aware of the nature of the pressure that has been exercised—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—on this occasion, and it would be a very good idea for those who have exercised the pressure, to look in close detail at the discussions in which we are now engaged.
If the Attorney-General is explaining that it would be all right to have Punch and Judy Shows on Sundays under the new arrangement, and perhaps a small zoological garden for the youngsters, or a boating lake and, maybe, a children's boat race—and these are the points under discussion—I want to make the strongest protest. Although I know as clearly as anyone else what was done last Tuesday, I want to make a strong protest against those who apparently, for good Sabbatarian reasons, pushed us one way so completely last Tuesday and have engaged all this time of the Committee in asking us to travel back and accept this and that proposal.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I wish to say a word. I am not going into the controversy whether it is humbug or not, but the fact is that this was a decision of the Committee. What I suggest perfectly amicably to the Government is that, as the Home Secretary voted with the great majority, while the Lord President of the Council voted with the minority, it is perhaps worth the consideration of the Attorney-General whether "the Home Secretary" should be inserted, instead of "the Lord President of the Council."

Mr. H. Morrison: That either is a perfectly legitimate leg pull, or it is a reflection upon my quasi-judicial capacity. If it is a reflection upon my capacity to be quasi-judicial I resent it, and I repudiate it, because, if ever a man took trouble on the Second Reading of a Bill to make an impartial speech, I did so on this Bill. I had a tribute on that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was speaking on the Fraudulent Mediums Bill on Friday. I think it very rough luck on me that this aspersion should be made by a former Chief Whip with whom I worked in the Coalition Government and for whom I have great respect.
On this Amendment I am frankly in this difficulty. On Tuesday I voted the other way—I am not going to whine about it at all, one must take defeat as well as victory. The House did decide by a distinct majority against any amusements in the Festival Gardens during the Festival of Britain. The Labour Party was split right down the middle on the issue with a majority against me, not a very big one but a very slight one. The Conservative Party, with the Whips off,


was almost absolutely solid—a remarkable achievement—almost absolutely solid against any amusements on Sundays in the Festival Gardens. Consequently, the majority against this was very big. I do not want to defy the House of Commons. The House of Commons made its decision and I am disposed to observe the result and, in view of that disposition—

Miss Florence Horsbrugh: The right hon. Gentleman has to.

Mr. Morrison: I have to. I know that, but there are such things as walking round a decision of the House. The right hon. Lady should know that from our joint experience in the Coalition Government.

Miss Horsbrugh: That is why I was very uncertain when I heard the suggestion. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was trying to walk round the decision come to last week.

Mr. Morrison: That was once done by a Coalition Government when the House decided for equal pay and two days later was compelled to reverse its decision. I was a party to that. But I must say that in this House I would not like to try that at all. I have too great a respect for the House of Commons and I would not in any way try to evade the decision the Committee reached last week. The House, as a Committee, reached a decision and knew what it was doing, and it is no good today trying to wriggle out of the decision reached last week.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), speaking for a party almost solidly united on the issue last week, now says he does not know what the view of his party is and warns us to be very careful. The alternatives are either to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) which, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, is the logical consequence of what the House as a Committee did last week; and the alternative is to leave me and the Festival Board a clean discretion to act within certain understood limits.

The Attorney-General: Outside the fair ground.

Mr. Morrison: Outside the fair ground, within understood limits, which cannot

easily he defined in an Act of Parliament. I am prepared for it either way, but what I do not want is a situation in which I am to be shot at day by day as to whether I am evading the decision the House reached in Committee last week. I have had enough sharp shooting on this venture, and on this matter I shall be sensitive if I am to be accused day by day and week by week of evading a decision of the House of Commons.
Therefore, whilst I do not want to be dogmatic or harsh, I suggest that the best thing and the cleanest thing, in the light of what the Committee did last week, is for the Committee to implement what the Committee did last week and to carry this Amendment. I beg of the Committee not to try to have the best of both worlds or to sit on both sides of the fence. The House made a decision in Committee last week and on the whole I would sooner be relieved of the embarrassing situation of trying to balance the matter this way and the other.

Mr. Summers: The comments we have just heard from the Lord President of the Council prompt me to say what I have in mind which has not yet been referred to in this connection. As I understand it from a letter in "The Times" from Festival Gardens Limited, they made it clear that if the gardens as such were to be opened, they would have to charge some form of admission and they doubted whether they would get enough people if they did so because of the limited attractions—in their view—which would be available without opening the amusements park. I believe it would be most undesirable if it could be said that the only Sundays on which Battersea Park is closed were the Sundays during the course of the Festival of Britain. But it appears quite likely that one of the consequences of all this pother is that the gardens in Battersea Park may be closed on those Sundays when the Festival of Britain is being held.
I would regard that as a most unfortunate consequence. The suggestion is made that we should accept this Amendment and virtually forget the gardens altogether. I see no reason why people should be deprived of the opportunity of going into those gardens to enjoy the quite splendid improvements that have been made particularly for this Festival. More-


over, I see no reason why there should not be a concert in the gardens on Sundays—

The Attorney-General: If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that concerts are perfectly legal anyway.

Mr. Summers: Do I understand that the Attorney-General tells us that if a charge is made for admission to a place—and by a place I mean the Festival Gardens—and there was there held a concert, that would be a perfectly legal affair?

The Attorney-General: As I understand the law, certainly. I thought I made it perfectly clear. I tried to, but the hon. Member did not appreciate it in the two speeches I made before. Concerts are perfectly legal.

Mr. Summers: I am very glad to hear that. As far as the Lord President of the Council is concerned, he says there are only two ways of dealing with this business; either to shut up the gardens, or to give him discretion—

Mr. Morrison: I did not say that. Is the hon. Member capable of being impartial about this? I did not say "shut up the gardens." I do not know whether the gardens will be shut up or not and I am not uttering about that. I said that it is either to stand where the Committee stood last week, or to give me discretion.

Mr. Summers: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is so touchy about this. I am not attempting to be partial in any shape or form. All I am concerned with is to try to get a clear understanding of a position which is becoming increasingly complicated with every speech that is made. The right hon. Gentleman says he is frightened of the discretion which might be given to him, which, indeed, was given to him under his own Amendment—

Mr. Morrison: Really the hon. Member should listen and not put into my mouth adjectives and things I did not use. I did not say that. I did not say that I was incapable of being impartial. I am very capable of being impartial.

Mr. Summers: It is the Lord President of the Council who is not listening in this case. He made it quite clear with-

out a shadow of doubt that he did not wish to be accorded the discretion which his own Amendment on the Order Paper might result in him getting. He is being very touchy about this matter, as he has already shown us. He said "I have been sniped at; please do not put me in a position to be sniped at any more."
There is a very simple way out, and it is not necessary to adopt the other alternative which the Lord President mentioned. That simple way is to come to this House, as I believe should have been done in the first instance, and say, "We wish to do certain things in the Festival Gardens on Sunday, and we ask the permission of Parliament to do them." May I have the attention of the Lord President, and he will then perhaps know clearly what I am saying? The Attorney-General told us in one of the earlier debates that the difficulty was to make a sufficiently elaborate catalogue of objectionable features as to ensure that nothing was missed out, and that therefore a few were mentioned and the balance were to be dealt with in the form of discretion. I readily agree that it is quite an impossible task to make such a catalogue.
On the other hand, I do not see why it is not possible to make a positive catalogue of what is wanted. The time between now and when the Festival is to be opened is relatively short. Surely those responsible for what is to be done at Battersea next May already know what they would like to have the authority of this House to do? That would avoid entirely the question of discretion and the question of impracticable catalogues of objectionable features. That appears to me to be by far the most satisfactory way in which to proceed. I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn—I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of this Bill will read HANSARD tomorrow; they will not have any notion of what I am saying unless they do—and that the effect of this discussion will be that the Government will find a form of words which will enable the Gardens themselves to be opened without in any way, as my right hon. Friend has already said, offending the decision of this House in respect of the amusement park.

Mr. MacColl: I entirely agree that it would be wrong if those of us who


voted in the minority on the previous occasion were, in a fit of "sour grapes," so to speak, to try to taunt hon. Members who were in the majority on that occasion into spoiling the value of the Festival Gardens. But I think that they are being a little unfair to my right hon. Friend. They told us a great deal about the essential characteristics of the British way of life, which they were interpreting for us. They are now proposing to leave it to my right hon. Friend to decide what is in accordance with the British way of life and what is not.
5.15 p.m.
One of them, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), mentioned, when we were discussing a previous Amendment, that Leeds on a Sunday was a very dull place. He seemed to think that that was an argument for having further additions to the amenities on a Sunday. But surely the whole point about the British way of life on a Sunday is that it does not matter how dull it is, that one ought to be enjoying the amenities of one's home life, and that one should, therefore, not need any kind of external entertainment.
If we are so anxious, as is the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), to keep the Festival Gardens open on Sunday, I cannot see how that can be done without offending some people, which is one of the things that we were told not to do. We were told that we must not take for ourselves powers that were not available for anyone who wanted to break the Sunday observance laws, and that we must not introduce alien influences. We were told it was wrong to have the fun fair open because it would have foreign forms of amusements. We are now told that concerts can be given. I do not know if it is proposed to have in such concerts works by foreign composers or excerpts from foreign operas, because that would not be demonstrating to our visitors any essential characteristic of the British way of life.
It is astonishing to be told that it will be possible to have concerts, because nothing could be more disturbing, I should have thought, than a concert. I find it rather disturbing to be told by people like the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who hold themselves out as interpreters of what is right and what is not right for a Christian to do on a Sunday,

that it is perfectly all right and in accordance with the British way of life on a Sunday for someone to go and hear at a concert an exceedingly bawdy comedian who has slipped pass the censorship—it is a problem which sometimes arises at so-called sacred concerts at public resorts; whereas if I, not being particularly musical, want to ride on a roundabout after going to church, I shall be doing something which would ravage the feelings of the British public—

Mr. Summers: I ask the hon. Member to read what I said last week—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why should he?"]—because he has made a false accusation in what he has just said, namely, that I have any desire to teach people what they should or should not do on a Sunday. Will the hon. Member bear in mind, in connection with the last point he has made, that we have been told that a concert in these Gardens on Sunday is legal, and that if that is so, no privileges will be accorded to the Government in that matter?

Mr. MacColl: But the hon. Gentleman was helped by a little free legal advice by the Attorney-General. Prior to that he was arguing that he would be happy to have concerts because he apparently regarded Sunday concerts as respectable.
My point is that there are some of us, who regard ourselves as perfectly good churchmen, and as sound Christians as any, with our defects, can hope to be, who regard it as perfectly legitimate that after going to church on a Sunday morning, we should go and ride on a roundabout. Other Members take an entirely different view. We should not leave it to my right hon. Friend to have to interpret whether or not a body of religious feeling will or will not be shocked by a Punch and Judy show, which attacks the sacred British institution of matrimony, which encourages recourse to violence at a time—[Laughter.]—it is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh; we have often been told about the disquieting increase in crimes of violence, and that we ought to introduce corporal punishment because of it. If the criminal statistics rise, my right hon. Friend will be held responsible because he has allowed this pagan entertainment of Punch and Judy.
We must recognise the fact that, after what I can only regard as extravagant emotion, the Committee last Tuesday


came to a decision which I regard as wholly illogical and wholly wrong. But it has been taken, and for Members like the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who must take responsibility for that decision, to try to get out of the position they have created and say, "We will leave it to the Lord President to try to bring in one or two things by a side road and to damp down the effect of that decision," is to endeavour to place on my right hon. Friend an intolerable burden. It would be much better to leave the position as it is at the moment, in all its stark horror.

Mr. H. Morrison: I adhere to what I said before. There is great force in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It would be undesirable for the Amendment to be withdrawn. I think that it would be better for the Committee to vote in the spirit of the free vote of last week, especially in view of the grave doubts of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). It is far better to settle this matter. If I might advise the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), and other hon. Members, I suggest that the Amendment should not be withdrawn and that the Committee should have a completely free vote.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman referred to me. I am not speaking for any party. There has never been any question of us having the party Whips on, nor have I been able to consult my hon. Friends in order to express a joint view. The right hon. Gentleman shows considerable sense in taking this line, because it would be impossible for him or any other Minister to be in the position of having to define, in front of a series of religious bodies and others, whether or not a Punch and Judy show on Sunday was suitable. I certainly would not allow myself to be put in that position.
If we let this Amendment pass, as I am disposed to do, we cut out of the Bill the words referred to in the Amendment. We want to be sure that when the Government look through the Bill again in the time between now and the Report stage they will consider whether it is in the correct legal form to avoid the two dangers either of leaving a complete discretion to the right hon. Gentleman or of landing us in a position which some

of us would regret. I should like further guidance on that.

Mr. Morrison: The Committee had better decide, then we will see what happens.

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee is now willing to come to a decision.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I suggest that the advice given by the Lord President is sound advice, though not perhaps exactly for the reason that he gave. In this matter I have a very considerable sympathy both with the Lord President and the Attorney-General who have sought to advise the Committee very fairly to the best of their ability. The only matter that puzzles me in the discussion we have had is the advice of the Attorney-General that this Amendment might be withdrawn. I cannot see that that would have any advantage for anybody, whatever his view of this matter.
The words that it is proposed by this Amendment to omit cannot make sense in the Bill as it now stands. They can only be made to make sense if a subsequent Amendment is moved on Report stage. As far as I can see, while I sympathise very much with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his desire that the Committee should express an opinion on the point he put before us, it cannot express that opinion on this Amendment. That opinion can only be expressed when we see on the Order Paper the Amendment, if any, which some hon. or right hon. Gentleman will put down on Report stage.
The only argument I can see in favour of withdrawing the Amendment is that, if it is withdrawn, then we leave in the Bill what is at present complete nonsense, and that that will compel the Government to put down some Amendment on Report stage. I do not wish to compel the Government to do that. I wish the Government, their supporters, or any hon. Members who wish, to put down any Amendment they think fit on Report stage. Then it can be considered on its merits. It would be a great pity if we left in the Bill at the conclusion of the Committee stage words which, on the admission of everybody, make nonsense. For that reason, I hope that the view of the Lord President of the Council will be accepted and that the Amendment will not be withdrawn.

Sir R. Acland: I apologise for delaying the proceedings, but I have a serious point to put. I feel very strongly for the Lord President. I see his reason for wanting to get a decision from the Committee now, and I am glad to think that this Amendment will be put to a vote. But I hope that it will be defeated, for the reasons indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I take it that the defeat of this Amendment would be an indication to the Government that we want them to consider how the Bill could be amended on Report stage so as to allow the Festival Gardens to be as attractive as possible, and to draw as many people as possible without offending against the spirit of the decision which the majority took last week.
Some of those who voted with the majority would like to see the boating lake open, the children's pets corner open and other facilities like that. I understand the Lord President's feeling that he would like the overwhelming majority of the Conservative Party, and such of my hon. Friends as the hon. Member for Cardiff. West (Mr. G. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and others, to be faced next year with the full rigorous consequences of what I and the Lord President still regard as the rather misguided decision which they took last week.
I see the attractiveness of that proposition, but there is something else which impressed itself on my mind. I want to see the Festival Gardens become as near to a total success as can be made. I have seen the Tivoli Garden in Copenhagen. I regard it as being, morally and

physically, the healthiest form in which large numbers of people can get decent recreation on a small space that there is anywhere in Europe. If we could see something like that developing in our own country, we should want to see it not only in Battersea Park next year but in all our cities in other years.

I believe that there are many hon. Members who voted with the majority last week who would be willing and happy to see many different kinds of amenities developed in the Festival Gardens next summer, provided that those amenities were such as clearly catered for the choice of children. There is in my constituency a tiny railway with a little model train which runs up and down on lines and which is so constructed that only children can ride on it. I believe that large numbers who voted with the majority last week would be happy to see that kind of children's amusement. I suggest that this Amendment, if put to the vote, should be defeated in order to give the Government an indication that the Committee would like them to think again on those sort of lines.

The Chairman: I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision, but I would call attention to the fact that I am proposing to put the Question in a form slightly different from the original proposal, in order that, if the Amendment is lost, I may save the following Amendments. I hope that is clear.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to 'not' in line 29, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97, Noes, 207.

Division No. 9.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Houghton, Douglas


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bartley, P.
Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.


Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Dodds, N. N.
Jay, D. P. T


Beswick, F.
Donnelly, D.
Jeger, G. (Goole)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jenkins, R. H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Dye, S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bower, N.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
King, H. M.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Ewart, R.
Lindsay, Martin


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Field, Capt. W. [...]
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wigh[...])


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, F.


Coldrick, W.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Collick, P.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderfield, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. G.
Mellish, R. J.


Crawley, A.
Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moeran, E. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Morley, R.


Daines, P.
Hall, J. (Galeshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.




Orbach, M.
Simmons, C. J.
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pannell, T. C.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Popplewell, E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Witley, F. T. (Sunderland)


Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rankin, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wyatt, W. L.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Yates. V. F.


Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ropner, Col. L.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Sir Richard Acland and


Royle, C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mr. Leslie Hale.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Watkins, T. E.



Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tivarton)
Heald, L. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Heath, E. R.
Paton, J


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pearson, A.


Bell, R. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Perkins, W. R. O.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, Cecil


Black, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wetis[...])
Holman, P.
Price, H. A (Lewisham, W.)


Booth, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Bossom, A. C.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Profumo, J. D.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Raikes, H. V.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braine, B.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Reeves, J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hyde, H. M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Renton, D. L. M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Burton, Miss E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roper, Sir H.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Russell, R. S.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Channon, H.
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Clunie, J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Slater, J.


Clyde, J. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Colegate, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


Collindridge, F.
Llewellyn, D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S.W.)
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, A. R. W
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McAdden, S. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
MacColl, J. E.
Storey, S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mack, J. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Mackeson, Brig [...]. R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Crouch, R. F.
McKibbin, A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)
Maclay, Hon J. S.
Summers, G. S.


Cundiff, F. W.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Digby, S. Wingfield
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling[...])
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir [...]. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Tilney, John


Fisher, Nigel
Mellor, Sir J.
Tomney, F.


Follick, M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Fort, R.
Moody, A. S.
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Viant, S. P.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Moyle, A.
Vosper, D. F.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Murray, J. D.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Nabarro, G.
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Gibson, C. W.
Neal, H.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Nicholson, G.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Grey, C. F.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Grimston, Hon. J. (St Albans)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Hannan, W.
Nutting, Anthony
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wigg, George


Hargreaves, A.
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Oliver, G. H.
Wills, G.


Harrison, J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, Air-Codre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Orr-Ewing Ian L. (Weston-super-Marr)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hay, John
Padley, W. E.
Sir Herbert Williams and


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Mr. Deedes.


Resolution agreed to.

Remaining words left out.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should like to ask the Lord President whether he intends to bring forward any proposals in relation to subsection (1. b) such as were earlier suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, who indicated that a certain amount of recasting of Clause 1 might be necessary. I am inquiring whether he is intending to make any such recasting or not.

The Attorney-General: No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. What I said was that if the Amendment were rejected and it was the sense of the Committee that a boating lake or some similarly innocent amenity should be permitted, then we should have to have some recasting of the earlier part of the Clause because the words in subsection (4), standing alone, would be mere nonsense, as the hon. and learned Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out. If those words had been left in we could, on Report, have associated them in some recasting of the earlier part of the Bill permitting a children's corner and a boating lake. But the Committee have now, in effect, voted against these things, so we would not propose to introduce any further Amendment to the Bill in that regard. No doubt it would be possible for others to do so.

Mr. Higgs: There is one other point on this Clause on which I would like to ask the Lord President a question. He said at an earlier stage that this might be the time for considering matters of detail. One of the parts of the Festival for the opening of which we have voted on Sundays is the Architectural Exhibition in the East End of London. In information which has been circulated to hon. Members, we are told that that will consist of 30 acres near the East India Docks and that in 1951 it will become a thriving community. It will consist of flats, houses, shops, schools, two churches—one Roman Catholic and one Congregational—an old people's home, a market place, and, last but not least, three public-houses.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the intention is there on Sundays,

because he told the House, in answer to a Question which I put down the other day, that those houses and flats are to be occupied. The tenants will be living in them when the time comes, and it follows that the schools and churches on the Sundays when the Festival is open will be used as Sunday schools and that people will be going to evening service. Indeed, it says in the literature that it is to be a live exhibition. I wish to know whether careful consideration has been given to the people who will be living in those houses and flats and to the people who will be going to those churches and Sunday schools and using those public houses on Sundays. Is it right that they should be a live exhibition seven days a week for six months in the year, and should not some consideration be given to limiting that part of the Festival on a Sunday, if not excluding it altogether?
Information which we have, and which has been circulated to us, gives us some idea of what will be going on there, but not perhaps sufficient to enable us to make a decision. Therefore, at this stage and in a probing spirit, I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Festival authorities have given any consideration to this, and whether they are satisfied that that part of the Festival will not, on Sundays, be a great intrusion upon the people who are living and have their being in those. 30 acres.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not think so. It may comfort the House if I say that this is in no way a part of the amusement park it is a totally different thing. It is an architectural exhibition to illustrate modern British town planning and what can be done in the way of town planning, housing, schools, and so on. I do not see why people should not have a look round on a Sunday. Obviously, they will not look into people's private apartments without their consent. But this is permitted under the Bill as it stands. There is nothing to prevent it on a Sunday at all. Indeed, the House has really authorised it. The only thing it has cut out is the amusement park. I do not think there is any need to be apprehensive about the nuisance to people in the neighbourhood; indeed, from what I know of the people of the East End of London they will be most happy for people to come and look at it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I wish to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite a short point and one about which I think he will be able to satisfy my doubts, at any rate. It is the consideration given to the time of opening, or what is the proposal with regard to it. The words of the Clause provide that the opening shall be on Sundays not earlier than 12.30 in the afternoon. It seems to me, particularly with regard to the latter point with which the right hon. Gentleman was dealing—the question of people going to the Architectural Exhibition on a Sunday—that that time is too early. It will be just about the time when the residents in that part of the Exhibition are having their dinner, and so forth. It is not nice to be a part of a show when one is having one's Sunday dinner.
With regard to the rest of the Exhibition, which is also to be open on a Sunday, I think it would be helpful if the Lord President could tell us what were the considerations upon which the hour of 12.30 was arrived at as the earliest time of opening. Is it intended to open the Exhibition at that hour or is it intended, in all probability, to make the earliest possible time of opening after the normal dinner time? That hour is likely to conflict, to some extent, with attendance at church on a Sunday morning.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Lord President can answer between now and the Report Stage whether the result of carrying this last Amendment will be to close down the Festival Gardens altogether on a Sunday. We should be told, because if they are to be open some of us may want to table some appropriate Amendments on the Report stage.
Can my right hon. Friend tell us if chess would be permitted in the Gardens on Sunday, provided that "check" was given by dumb-show and that the traditional method of resigning by kicking over the table was not permitted? I feel that with these safeguards it could be sincerely said that if that were so no real offence would be given to residents 300 yards away. Can he also say whether we can have a childrens' paddling pool open, with boats of not more than six ounces tonnage? It is a difficult thing to put, but I think hon. Members will understand

the image I want to convey. If it were strictly laid down that smiling would be prohibited, that laughter would be punished by fines and that chortles of joy would be punished by fine and imprisonment under a by-law, I think we could save a little from the wreckage of this afternoon's work.

Mr. H. Morrison: No doubt these points will be considered, especially by the few of the Opposition who on the Amendment a few minutes ago were almost solidly anti-opening. I should not like to express an opinion about them on my own responsibility just now. With regard to whether the Festival Gardens will be open at all, I will consider the point my hon. Friend has raised, but it is a matter primarily for the Board of Festival Gardens Limited who, of course, have business responsibility for the management of the Gardens. I have no doubt they have to consider the managerial and financial repercussions of the decision of the Committee last week, and I should not like to say anything that would prejudice their point of view.
As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), the provisions in the Bill are that nothing can be opened before 12.30 on Sunday. It is not obligatory that everything should be opened at precisely 12.30 on Sunday, and I see his point with regard to this residential area. I do not want to give a ruling or a decision, but I will see that notice is taken of this point.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Were the Churches' Advisory Council in agreement with the hour of 12.30 as the earliest?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Churches' Advisory Council were in agreement with the opening of everything at 12.30 and after, provided the amusement park was not open at all.

Mr. Summers: There Is one point I should like to raise with regard to the Pleasure Gardens, particularly in the hope that it will be taken up by Festival Gardens Limited before they come to make a decision. They suggested that they might find difficulty in keeping the gardens open because a charge would have to be made and because there is said to be so little to attract people there on Sunday that it might not be worth their keeping open at all. I think that point is worth a


moment's examination. If in fact all this planning and gardening in Battersea Park is to produce nothing exceptional, or nothing sufficient to attract people to pay an entrance fee to come in on a Sunday, then what right is there to charge an entrance fee on weekdays? Because the only difference between weekdays and Sundays is the existence of the amusement park.

The Chairman: This Clause relates solely to Sundays. I do not think the question of weekdays can arise.

Mr. Summers: With respect, Major Milner, it would be relevant surely to point out that if a charge is justified on a weekday, or if it can be shown that a charge is not justified on a weekday, then the same practice should be followed on a Sunday for precisely the same thing. My point relates purely to the threat to shut the Gardens on a Sunday owing to the alleged difficulty in charging for admission. I think that point is quite relevant and it will only take a moment for me to complete my argument.
If there is nothing to justify a charge to go into the Gardens as such then it becomes nothing but an ad hoc Purchase Tax conferring the right to go in and spend one's money subsequently in the Amusement Park. I suggest that is not the proper way to look at it and there is proper justification for the charge both during the week and Sundays. If the Festival is going to be as successful as we hope it will be, there is every reason why the Gardens should be kept open and I hope they will be.

Mr. Gibson: Some people seem to think that the Architectural Exhibition in Poplar is similar to the Battersea Park fun fair where one has to pay to go in. In fact, it will be a series of public streets and the public will have a right to go there at any time, day or night. As one who was concerned with this matter in its very early days, I must say that nobody in the London County Council, at any rate, envisages hordes of strangers from abroad invading the flats in which the dockers of Poplar live. They will have the right—and I hope they will exercise it—to wander about the streets and the wonderful market place which is being built there, to see the effects of London housing and architecture; and they will be able to go into flats and

houses which are not completed to study the method of construction and so on.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Will they be able to visit the public houses and get a drink on Sundays?

Mr. Gibson: I have no doubt the brewers will watch that very carefully, and, of course, the dockers will want to know whether they are open or not. I hope it will be made clear that in the area in Poplar which is classified as an Architectural Exhibition, those parts which are completed and occupied by tenants are sacred to the tenants and that people can go along and look at the outside but not wander in and out of people's flats. I understand that there will be uncompleted buildings to show the style of construction, which can be visited by arrangement by those interested. I hope that the Lord President is not going to be credited with the intention to enclose an area where one would have to pay to go in. That is completely false. Any such plan would meet with the opposition of the people of Poplar and Stepney.

Mr. Turton: In view of the very clear explanation given, will the Government consider, before the Report stage, whether subsection (2, d) ought to be in this Bill at all? All the arguments put forward have shown that there is really nothing to fear from the opening of the Architectural Exhibition in Poplar, because nothing is being charged for admission and people in the area will be free to wander the streets.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will certainly be entitled to walk round the streets and even go into the public houses, which will be open during the ordinary permitted hours, in the course of his lawful occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) was also right that the ordinary community centre, as it were, would be open to everybody who wishes to go there without charge. Of course, nobody would be entitled to go into anybody's house in that part of Poplar, any more than in any other part of Poplar. On the other hand, there will be at least two enclosures, one of which, for instance, will show houses built to the accepted standards of jerrybuilding with which we were familiar before the war. The other will be built


in accordance with the modern and up-to-date standards and amenities for which in these last five years the Labour Government are so justly credited.

6.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will there also be a vacant piece of ground for the houses which have not been built by the Labour Government?

The Attorney-General: Yes, there will be pieces of ground on which provision will be made for the other amenities, including community centres, which have been built by the Labour Government as part of the general system of town and country planning, and we shall contrast in this way how houses can be built with proper amenities, built to last, with the old method of jerry building. That is going to be called the Building Research Pavilion; it will no doubt be of great historical and practical interest, and some small charge will be made for admission to it. In addition, there will be another pavilion or enclosure to which the charge for admission will also apply, which will deal with the history and development of town and country planning; but as to the community area as a whole, entrance for that is free, although, of course, nobody will be allowed to commit any trespass.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: How much of this ought to be charged to the party funds of the Government will provide a very interesting piece of research on which I have no doubt the legal pundits will begin immediately, in view of the declaration of the Attorney-General. No doubt, it will cause some interesting repercussions upon the election expenses of the London candidates.
1 think it is a slight pity that the Attorney-General should have dragged his coat so vigorously up and down the Floor of the Committee; no doubt, he expects it to be trodden on pretty heavily, as indeed it will be. I hope that in the town and country planning exhibition there will be exhibits of houses of perfectly respectable citizens being torn down in order that roads should be constructed to lead to houses which are not yet there. I trust that a graph will be given showing the number of people engaged upon housing in the new towns and the pathetic few people for whom houses may be expected to be completed. I trust also that a figure

will be given showing the number of houses which were intended to be built under the aegis of the Labour Government—500,000 or 600,000 a year—and the number which has actually been built.
The Attorney-General has opened up a very large vista for the Committee this afternoon, and I must say that he has departed very far from the attempts of his right hon. Friend the Lord President to keep the matter on a non-party and unbiased keel. Anything less unbiased than the remarks of the Attorney-General would be difficult to conceive. I trust that he will include those remarks in the category to which he drew the attention of the House last week—those unfortunate remarks made by himself in the heat of the moment, and which he subsequently withdrew, when he was greatly indebted to the good will of the House for the gracious way in which they accepted his apology. I am sure no one wishes to be hard on him, and if, after reflection, he wishes to withdraw these remarks I am sure the Committee will be most glad and willing to accept his withdrawal. Otherwise, I must say it will go down on the record as a very unfortunate example of party manners.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman really does take himself a little too seriously. He is himself doing valuable service on the Council of the Festival of Britain, and I have no doubt that he will see that whatever is provided in the Poplar exhibition of architecture is suitably impartial and appropriate. I ought to have added for the information of the Committee that children under 15 will be admitted at half price; children under five will not be admitted at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not have intervened in this debate but for the observations of the Attorney-General. I hope that the Committee will not part from this Clause until some responsible member of the Government Front Bench gets up and indicates that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations are not to be taken seriously. We have been told again and again by the Lord President that this Festival is a national occasion. That has been repeated I think at least weekly, and now we have the right hon. And


learned Gentleman standing at that Box telling the Committee that one of the features of the Poplar exhibition is to be a deliberately conceived bit of party propaganda. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite do not regard a house of excellent construction, exhibited as one constructed by the Socialist Government, with a contrasting exhibit of poor construction, alleged to have been constructed—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member is going rather beyond the Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect, Sir Charles, we are discussing among other things Clause 1 (2, d) which relates to the Exhibition of Architecture, Poplar. We have been told from the Government Front Bench that one of the main purposes of this part of the Exhibition is to further the political aims of the Socialist Party.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am on a point of order. We have been told by the senior Minister present that what we have so far believed to be part of a national Festival is a purely party exhibition. That being so, with respect, surely it is in order to submit that while Sunday opening may be perfectly permissible in respect of a national exhibition, it is infinitely less permissible if the whole obect of the thing is a party ramp. The right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently desires to intervene. Unless he is prepared to say that his remarks were an exhibition of an ill-timed sense of humour, I do not think we should allow this Clause to go forward. It should not go on record from a Minister of the Crown that the money voted by Parliament for this purpose as part of a national Festival is in part to be used in a crude attempt to secure votes for the Socialist Party.

Sir R. Acland: I think that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is a little bit touchy. He and his colleagues must accept the fact that in these days a great many things such as the mining of coal, the running of railways and so on are done by the community. A great many other things, such as the building of houses, are done by private enterprise under the direction

of the community. When things are done by or under the direction of the community, and we have a Festival of Britain, it is right that we should show those things. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) says that if we show anything done by the Government, or under the Government's control, then, if we show what is good, we must, to be impartial, show side by side with it everything that anybody can say is bad. Would he apply that test to the things exhibited by private enterprise? I understand that a great many things are being exhibited at the Festival which have been made by private enterprise.

Mr. McCorquodale: Could we have a clean piece of pre-war coal, for instance?

Sir R. Acland: That is quite an interesting suggestion. Could we apply the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's test to private enterprise, because I understand that, with the full concurrence of all those who are supporting it and of those who have Socialist opinions, we intend to exhibit British private enterprise at its best. We are to exhibit its best products. Would the Opposition want us to exhibit, for the sake of complete party impartiality, all its worst products and its worst consequences? If there is to be exhibited something which has been produced by the shipbuilding industry and which is to the credit of that industry—as I think should be the case—are we to exhibit, side by side with it, graphs and tables showing what the shipbuilding industry did to Jarrow? Surely not. Turning to the electrical industry, if we are to show its good products, should we also show, side by side—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the question of Sunday opening.

Sir R. Acland: My argument is clear enough, and I will abandon it at this point.
While I am on my feet, however, there is another point I want to make in respect of what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), who asked that, in the next few days, a spokesman of the Government should consult with those responsible for the Festival and, at the


beginning of the Report stage, give a clear-cut statement on whether, as things now stand, the Festival Gardens will be opened on Sunday. That would be relevant to many decisions we have to make. I have a personal reason for asking for such a statement. I have just bought my 1951 diary and I want to know whether I am to keep an engagement which I have made to preach a sermon in the Battersea Park Festival Gardens on 8th July.

6.15 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am extremely sorry that the Attorney-General made the remarks which he did make.

Mr. Pannell: Humbug.

Air Commodore Harvey: It is not humbug at all. I am entitled to give my view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is usually most fair in these matters and I think his remarks were most unfortunate. In time he will regret them, as he regretted one other remark he made a few years ago. If the present Government are in power—and they may not be—I suggest that they should also have at the Research Exhibition placards showing all the statements made by the Minister of Health—that the back of the housing programme would be broken, and so on. I suggest that pre-war rents and prices should be exhibited parallel with present prices. I hope that, on reflection, the Attorney-General will think better of what he said and will withdraw it.

The Attorney-General: I should be very sorry to occupy the time of the Committee, Sir James—[Laughter.] I apologise, Sir Charles; I am afraid I am always making these mistakes, although, when I do so, I am sure that it will not be long before I have the correct and noble title! I should be sorry to waste time longer on this matter. The Committee appeared to be in a slightly frivolous mood, but I realise now more than I did earlier how dangerous it is to make a joke in the presence of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and I are quite familiar, as I thought was the whole Committee, with what is to be exhibited, and what is proposed at Poplar: the real point of our discussion was the question of payment for admission.
There will be two pavilions and I think every hon. Member has received from the Festival authorities rather detailed particulars of what is to be provided in those two pavilions. In one there is to be the exhibition of town planning and in the other—and I must say that I cannot see that this involves any political question at all—there is to be an exhibition of all the evils of jerrybuilding, which are condemned as much by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, if not by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, as they are condemned upon this side of the Committee. There is to be an exhibition of all the developments and modern research which have resulted in better building methods being used. There is nothing political in that, and I did not intend to suggest that there was. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield—of whom I really thought better—should have taken my rather obvious joke so seriously.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has sat down."]—may I suggest that the next time he intends to make a joke of this character he should recall the saying of one of his predecessors that a joke in his mouth is no laughing matter.

The Attorney-General: If it pleases the hon. Gentleman, I will give serious consideration to submitting anything which even verges upon flippancy to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames before I open my mouth about it.

Major H. Johnson: I will not detain the Committee for more than two minutes. The point I have to raise may be a false one and, if so, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will interrupt me in order to save time. As I understand the position, certain parts of the Festival—what one might term the cultural things—are to be opened in London on Sundays. I am concerned about towns such as Cambridge, Oxford, Liverpool and my own constituency, Brighton, and other towns which are having provincial festivals. I should like to have an explanation from the Attorney-General as to why—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday next, and to be printed [Bill 45].

Orders of the Day — REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the reinstatement in civil employment of persons who have served whole-time in the Armed Forces of the Crown and for safeguarding the employment of persons liable to serve as aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any additional expenses which by virtue of the said Act fall to to be so defrayed under section fifty-five of the National Service Act, 1948.

REINSTATMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS OF RESERVES CALLED UP FOR WHOLE- TIME SERVICE.)

6.20 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from "commission," to the end of line 18.
In considering our Amendments in Committee I would say at once that we do not regard the Bill in any way as a party affair. Our object on this side is to improve it, if possible, and to make it an encouragement to those serving in the Forces at the present time.
I gather that the intention of paragraph (b) of the Clause—and I mentioned in my remarks on Second Reading that it was rather complicated—is to provide that reinstatement rights should apply to whole-time service which arises in consequence of an undertaking of an officer to come up for periodic training, such as a Territorial officer. I am advised also by some people—and I am not a legal pundit in this matter—that by including

these last words in the paragraph the effect would be, because National Service officers will have a requirement to serve part-time for the Territorial service after they leave the Forces, that those National Service officers may for that purpose be excluded once again, although we are bringing them into this Bill, they having been excluded before owing to an oversight.
I may be wrong about this. I have endeavoured to make such inquiries as it was possible for me to do, but I may be wrong. However, I think it would be useful if the Minister would make a firm statement, if he is able, saying that if these words which I propose to leave out are left in, this will not in any way invalidate the rights of the National Service men who have become officers and are now being brought under the protection of this Clause.
I should have liked, of course, also to see the Territorial service of officers and ex-officers of the Regular Army covered by this provision, but I realise that that is a very wide matter. The men are not covered either at the present time, and I would not press that. Therefore, I merely move this Amendment at this stage to inquire of the Minister whether he is quite sure that, by leaving in these words, he is not again invalidating the position of the National Service man who becomes an officer owing to the skill he has shown.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I can give the assurance for which the right hon. Gentleman asks on this point. I am not a legal pundit, or a pundit of any kind, but I am advised by those who thoroughly understand the law as it relates to the Services that this is quite satisfactory. No rights of reinstatement are given in relation to part-time service in the Territorials. There is no need to do it. Employers all over the country have co-operated very handsomely in encouraging their people to go into this Service, and there is not the slightest doubt about their reinstatement.
This means that commissioned officers are to have the same rights as other men so far as their call-up for their period of National Service is concerned. To the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen associated with him in the Amendment, who may be under a misapprehension, I can give the definite


assurance that those officers who have training liabilities have the benefits of the Bill if called up for National Service. It makes no difference to them at all, and they will be covered in exactly the same way as other ranks.

Mr. McCorquodale: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS OF PERSONS VOLUNTARILY EXTENDING THEIR SERVICE UNDER PART I OF NATIONAL SERVICE ACT, 1948.)

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 36.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think we could consider this Amendment with the next one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman—in page 2, line 38, leave out "six" and to insert "eighteen."

Mr. McCorquodale: I was going to suggest that, Sir Charles, for the two Amendments are closely related.
This matter refers to National Service men who volunteer to stay on for a further period at the request of the military authorities. The present situation is that by this Bill National Service men are covered up to two years and keep their reinstatement rights. They go on to the Territorial Reserve for four years.
The matter to which I wish to refer was raised on the Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), who may wish to say more on the subject. The Air Force have instituted arrangements by which they encourage the young conscripts to serve for three years full time in the Air Force and three years part time, afterwards, instead of for two years and four years. I am not quite sure whether the other Services have followed the example of the Air Force, but I am assured that it is quite invaluable to the Air Force. It enables young men to be taught aircrew duties, radar, and other matters requiring high skill, for which the period of 18 months or two years is too short. I understand from such inquiries as I have been able

to make that the Air Force, who are to be congratulated on initiating this move, have been highly successful, and that a great number of young men are volunteering to serve three years full time and three years part time instead of two years full time and four years part time.
But now comes an anomaly, and I must ask the Committee to consider whether it is fair and just that, while young men who are to serve, two years full time and four years part time are covered by reinstatement assurances that they will get their employment back, young men who volunteer at this time for three years' service get no rights under this Bill or under the previous legislation. They have lost the rights to reinstatement and their previous employers have no obligation to take them back.
I cannot believe that the Government really intend to continue in this way. I believe that everybody will think that, if a young man serves three years to give us protection, and volunteers, in order to protect us, to serve three years to get the higher skill necessary to make himself a proficient member of the Air Force, and is left out of this protection, it is unfair. I believe that this has been so felt that where young men have wished to volunteer for the three years to get their higher training they have approached their employers, or their employers have been approached on their behalf by the Air Force, to ask them individually whether they would be good enough to keep the jobs open for them. That is very good; but it would be better if the young men had the right to have their jobs again, in the same way as the young conscripts for two years have their jobs kept open for them.
There is one further consideration which we must bear in mind. I understand—indeed, the Minister has told us on more than one occasion—that the employers have been extremely helpful in operating the whole system of reinstatement, and that the number of cases of dispute have been relatively trivial; and it may be considered that it is not fair to place upon the employers any further burden. However, I believe strongly that there is no employer in this country at the present time, especially when we realise the need to meet which this Bill is to be passed, and which, of course, was initially the trouble in Korea, and which lies in the difficulties in which we all find


ourselves in regard to the necessity for rearmament—there is no employer who would say, "No, I am prepared to cover two-year conscripts but I am not prepared to cover three-year men who are undertaking voluntarily this further training"—which is for three years, and three years on the Reserve, as against two years and four years. The point has only to be put factually in that way to make it appear that such an attitude would be most unreasonable.
I am told further that by volunteering for the extra year these young men are rendering the highest possible service to their country at the present time. The constant theme of the Secretary of State for Air—whom I am glad to see here—when introducing the Air Estimates, has been how important it is to have men in the Air Force for a certain period in order that they can be trained for certain highly skilled jobs. I therefore suggest that these young men are, possibly above all at this moment, fulfilling the very best service they can for the State, and I urge the Minister to accept these Amendments and allow these young men to have the proper protection afforded by the reinstatement Acts which they would otherwise have as young conscripts. In seeking to change the six months to 18 months, we cover the extra year's service. I trust that the Minister will be able to accept what I regard as a reasonable proposition.

6.30 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: I support what my right hon. Friend has just said. There is a very strong case for accepting these Amendments. Three years out of a young man's life is a considerable period, but I think that in this instance he is getting a very great advantage out of this service: it helps him and it helps the Royal Air Force, particularly at a time like this, when there is a world crisis and the Service needs these men and can use every minute of their time.
There may be one or two employers who will not perhaps go so far as to give the assurance that is wanted. I should think there are very few indeed, but it would be better if the man himself knew that he was covered for reinstatement after his three years. In almost every case, when a firm takes a young man back after his service with the Royal Air Force,

he is an infinitely better tradesman, or whatever it may be, than when he entered the Service.
The Air Ministry are to be congratulated on having arranged for this extra period of service. I understand that in most cases it is done in co-operation with the firm concerned, and that the men follow their original trade or calling. I ask the Minister to accept these Amendments. It is a small point, but it is one which may make all the difference in a young man's mind when considering whether he should give this service which the country now requires.

Mr. Isaacs: Let me say at the outset that I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment. I shall explain the reasons. Following what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), I must say there is not the slightest doubt that these young men who stay on in the Royal Air Force are not only giving much needed service to the country, but are also getting first-class training, and will be very useful people when they leave the Service. It must be borne in mind that this Bill relates to National Service and the protection of men who are called up for National Service. It is not meant to be an Amendment to the ordinary military Acts, whatever they may be called.
It is now suggested that a man who volunteers to continue his service should be covered in that period of voluntary service in the same way as he was covered in his period of compulsory service. The whole purpose of these reinstatement rights is to ensure, with the consent of the employer, that a man who is taken from his work by the State and sent on the service of the State is restored to the position he occupied before the State took him. Let me say at once that that has been most honourably observed by employers throughout the country.
Where a man has volunteered, however, such protection has never been given. If we bring this arrangement into the realm of voluntary service we should have to relate it to all the other Services. We should get this peculiar anomaly. A National Service man who has finished his 18 months or two years' service and volunteers for an extra 18 months would get preference over the ordinary volunteer who signs on for three years. There


are many branches of the Services for which a man can join ordinarily for three years with the Colours and a certain time on the Reserve. For that three years he is not guaranteed reinstatement rights. We are bothered, not so much with the principle as with the operation. We see a danger, if we extend the period in which an employer can be compelled to reinstate a man who volunteers for this period, that we may be called upon to go beyond three years.
During the years I have been at the Ministry of Labour, dealing with reinstatement in civilian employment, out of 4,500,000 men and women demobilised, not more than 700 cases have arisen in which there has been any difficulty about reinstatement. That says a lot for the way in which employers have co-operated. It is clear that in the present circumstances of employment, apart from desiring to do so employers will find it necessary to reinstate these people. I prefer to say, however, that they desire and are willing to do it. To accept this suggested period would make things a little difficult for many employers. An employer may have a man who is very valuable to him who decides that he would like to go in the Army—and good luck to him. When he leaves his employer he does not usually say, "I can find you another man to take my place." That is left to the employer. The man leaves, not compulsorily but voluntarily and the employer gets another man whom he trains for the job.
If this Amendment were accepted, when the man who left voluntarily returns at the end of three years the employer would have to take him back into his old job, although he may have lost a good deal of his skill, because these men cannot be put on to exactly the same kind of work that they were doing in civilian life. That is not fair to the other man, for one thing. He may be an older man, who perhaps has done his National Service, or served as a Regular. If this Amendment were accepted he would have to be pushed out to make room for the man who had left.
We are anxious not to get into the field of having compulsory reinstatement for those who may be long-service men. If we make it three years now, sooner or later we shall be asked to make it five, and

then seven, and it would be difficult to resist. This has worked very well, and will continue to work very well with the cooperation of employers. In this Bill, which deals only with giving rights to people who have been taken from their employment by the State, we should not seek to deal with those who of their own free will leave their employment and enter the Services. I hope the Committe will not press me on this Amendment. If any other point worth examining is put forward it will be carefully examined by the Department to see whether anything could be done in future to meet the difficulties.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not said his last word on this issue. I welcome very much what he said about the general working of these Acts, and the figure he quoted was extraordinarily impressive and endorsed what he said about the willingness with which employers co-operate. I hope that on this issue, in relation to the particular category of men with whom we are concerned in this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to re-consider his attitude.
I will not attempt—and if I were to, you would probably call me to order, Sir Charles—to go now into the general question of whether or not the ordinary longterm Service volunteer should be given reinstatement rights. That certainly could not be done under this Bill, and is outside its title. But I think that the category of men with whom we are now dealing has at least as much resemblance to National Service men—with whom the Bill is concerned—as to the long-term volunteer. If I may, I will explain why that is my view.
As I understand it, this particular category, which I believe exists only in the Royal Air Force, consists of people who, instead of serving for two years as National Service men with a subsequent period of four years on the Reserve, enter into a modified arrangement under which they serve for three years whole time instead of two, with a year less on he Reserve. I understand it is arranged by the Royal Air Force because they find it more convenient, partly perhaps from the point of view of training aircrews, to have the man for three years whole time instead of two.
The category, therefore, that we are dealing with is the man who in discharge


of his National Service obligations takes on a slightly more onerous burden in as much as he accepts a year of whole-time instead of a year of part-time service. He is, in essence, a man discharging his National Service obligation. He is an admirable example of such a man because he voluntarily takes on an additional burden.
It would seem, first of all, right in equity and fairness that a man who takes on this additional obligation should not as a result be deprived of the benefits which under this Bill are given to those of his colleagues and contemporaries who do not take on this obligation. It seems in fairness that he is so entitled. From the practical point of view, I can fully understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about long-term volunteers, because there are technical and administrative difficulties for an employer in keeping a job open for a long period of time. There will obviously be some difficulty for the employer in keeping a job open for three years instead of two.
It seem to me that when we have to weigh that appreciable but not excessive additional burden upon the employer against the very real gain we get for the serving man, then the balance must come down in favour of the particularly patriotic serving man with whom we are concerned in this Amendment. In addition, there is the factor that as the Air Ministry—and I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Air on the Bench opposite—have introduced this scheme, no doubt in the interetsts of the Service, and I believe it has been a most successful scheme, surely it is in accordance with public policy that we should make sure that those who join up in a scheme put forward in the public interest by a Department of State are not exposed to any unnecessary penalties by reason of the working of this scheme.
For these reasons, I hope—because I personally and other hon. Members feel very strongly about this—that the right hon. Gentleman will at least give some indication that, having heard the argument, and having heard what, I believe, some of my hon. Friends are going to say, he is prepared at least to reconsider this matter and perhaps accept the argument that these men are nearer the kind of type of National Service men who are dealt with in this Bill, than they are to

the type of long-term volunteer, who for better or worse, is excluded from the benefits of this Bill.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Perhaps I may carry on with the last point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The right hon. Gentleman was clearly very worried about including in this Bill men serving on an engagement of a similar type to a Regular engagement. I should be worried, too, if that were in fact the case, but I put it to him that that is really not the case at all. The Regular engagement is, at the outset, in the nature of a career, even though we have not satisfied the Committee yet that Regular engagements reach that high state of perfection. When a man goes into a Regular engagement, whether it is the Army, Navy or Air Force, he accepts it as a career, whether a long-term career or a short-term career does not matter.
6.45 p.m.
Then there are the series of engagements which can be grouped under the term "short-service" engagement, which have become popular since the end of the war for a number of reasons, and which usually have attached to them some form of gratuity. Those are clearly quite distinct from the type of engagement that we are considering now. The engagement which we are now considering not only is quite clearly not a career engagement, and not only has it no gratuity incorporated in it, but it is also part of a man's National Service obligation. That is surely the point.
The men who were asked by the Secretary of State for Air to volunteer for national interest purposes for an extra 18 months in the Royal Air Force are National Service men, and they are doing that three years' engagement, or whatever it may be, in lieu of their whole-time National Service engagement. I should have thought that if the Committee viewed it in that way, they would support the Amendment without any qualms or fears at all.
There are one or two other points which were made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech which I should like to take up. Before doing so, may I say one further word on the volunteering aspect? As I understand it, at the time


when these men were asked to volunteer—and they volunteered at the request of the Secretary of State for Air—they were doing very much the same as those who were asked to volunteer for an extra six months by the Prime Minister, four or five months ago. After all, at that time, there was no statutory obligation for two years, and the ordinary National Service period was 18 months.
This Clause is out to protect the men who answered the call of the Prime Minister. I want to protect the men who answered the call of the Secretary of State for Air. They both volunteered in the national interest. Although in the short run the national interest connected with the Korean operations and the shortage of manpower may seem to be the more immediate and important, in the long run I would say that our needs for mechanics, air crews, etc., is every bit as important. I do not think that on national interest grounds we should distinguish between one and the other.
The other point which I wish to make is this: The right hon. Gentleman said words to the effect that it would be hard upon the employer to extend the period to three years. I see that the interest of the employer and the interest of the man himself conflict. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), put the need to draw the balance between these conflicting interests in favour of the national interest and the man, and he put it excellently. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make too much of the extended period. I think that in 1946–47 and part of 1948 employers were receiving back into their employment men who had served for three years or more. I do not think, on the right hon. Gentleman's own evidence, that any difficulty came out of that.
My last point is this: The right hon. Gentleman tells us—and I know that we are all very glad to hear it—that this question of reinstatement has worked well and smoothly. I think that reflects great credit on him and his Department and on the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale). That, surely, is no argument against incorporating this Amendment in the Bill. It seems an argument in favour of it. I hope that the Committee will support the Amend-

ment, and that the right hon. Gentleman, having listened to this debate, will be converted in his opinion.

Mr. Leather: I should like to underline very briefly one point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—he has turned down the Amendment on an analogy between the position of the men with whom we are concerned and the position of the men who volunteer for a three or five years' commission. I suggest that is not a fair or valid analogy. The man who volunteers leaves his job and says, "I am going into the Army." He is running his own risk. He does it, presumably, with his eyes open. Therefore, the State is not responsible at that point towards him. It is a voluntary decision that has been taken for his own reasons. The men with whom we are concerned now are in a different position. These are men whom the right hon. Gentleman has taken from their jobs. They are not men who have given up their civilian occupations voluntarily, but men who have been called to the Colours. Therefore, our moral responsibility is of a very real kind.
The second factor is that the Government have taken these men and have trained them. A great deal of time and money have been spent on training them for serving the country. It seems a pity, therefore, that this should be wasted, and that they should be encouraged, which is the effect of the Clause, to "chuck up" on the first opportunity and go back to civilian employment. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that our moral responsibility towards these men is something which should not be lightly disregarded, quite apart from the question of the value of the training.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has drawn attention to the men who have signed on for three years and those who have signed on for 18 months. He has said that we have a moral responsibility here. I would point out that it is only a difference of degree in the case of a man who has done 18 months and continues to do further service voluntarily. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) expressed the hope that


we would look at this from a practical point of view. I can assure him that we are trying to do so. The trouble is that this concerns the Royal Air Force. In the case of the Army, there are a lot of young fellows who have gone into the Guards for three years, and they can say "Look here, this other Johnny has given only 18 months' Service." He will point out that he has given three years' voluntary service and that there is no guarantee for him.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) has brought out one or two points for my consideration. Perhaps the Committee will accept this assurance. I will consult with the Air Ministry to see what can be done, and see what reactions there may be on the other Services. I am not holding out any hopes in connection with this Bill, but it may be possible to do something under the Navy and Military Acts. I am not closing my mind to the possibility of doing something, if we can, for the men who have come up under this arrangement. If the Committee will not press me at this stage, I will see whether something can be done in the matter.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am grateful to the Minister for having said that he will look into this matter again. I appreciate that he may not be in a position at the moment to take a definite decision on the matter, although I wish that he could do so. I believe that on studying the argument he will find there is an overwhelming case for these young National Service men who are doing six years' service, three years' whole-time and three years' part-time, instead of two years' whole-time and four years' part-time, at the urgent request of the State.
If the matter is looked at in that way, it will be seen that it has nothing to do with short or long-service men. I hope that the Minister will not be overruled by the Department or by the employers. I do not believe there is any body of employers that will not agree with the case we have put up today, and if the right hon. Gentleman gets any brickbats from any employers, I shall be very glad to deal with them if he will refer them to me. As I understand the Minister is to look at this matter again and produce some suitable arrangement, either in another place or by some other means, I

beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(ADAPTATION OF VARIOUS SECTIONS OF NATIONAL. SERVICE ACT, 1948.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, at the beginning, to insert:

(1) Section thirty-six of the National Service Act, 1948 (which relates to the time for making applications for reinstatement) shall have effect with regard to persons to whom Section one of this Act applies as though for the words "second Monday" in subsection (2) thereof there were substituted the words "fifth Monday."
(2) Section thirty-seven of the said Act (which relates to the duty of an applicant to state date of availability for employment) shall have effect with regard to persons to whom Section one of this Act applies as though for the words "fourteen days" wherever they occur in the aforesaid Section thirty-seven there were substituted the words "four weeks."

This Amendment relates to the machinery for implementing the decision of the House and the effect of the Bill. Its subject matter, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, was raised during the Second Reading by a number of Members, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to deal with it as a carefully considered question, in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to indicate that it would be looked into carefully. I need not, therefore, take up very much time in putting the case for the Amendment.
The Amendment relates to two things. It relates to the fact that, first, a Service man has to put in an application to exercise his rights, and, secondly, to state the date at which he will be ready and available for work. This Amendment deals with the periods during which he can exercise his rights. The Bill brings in the effect of Sections 36 and 37 of the National Service Act, 1948, under which the periods during which, if those rights are to be exercised, the application has to be made are very restricted. In the case of application to exercise the rights, the period is the period ending with the second Monday after discharge; that is to say, it is a period depending on the


day in the week of his discharge, varying from eight to 13 days. In the case of availability for work, the period is 14 days.
It so happens that this matter was dealt with in a different way in the 1944 Act, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) was partly responsible. By Sections 2 and 3 of that Act, the periods were prescribed as being up to the fifth Monday subsequent to discharge and four weeks. We seek to incorporate the same periods as were prescribed in the 1944 Act. There is one consideration that will, I imagine, have presented itself to the right hon. Gentleman's mind. The restricted period under the National Service Act, 1948, was, no doubt, justifiable because that Act was concerned with men who were serving a precisely defined period. I agree that the period was in accordance with the different decisions that were taken, but it was a precisely defined period of 12, 18 or 24 months. In other words, the men knew when they were to be released, and it was reasonable that if they wished to exercise their rights of reinstatement they should do so quickly.
Under the 1944 Act, we were concerned with people, as in this case, who had not the faintest idea when they would be released. Under this Bill we are, so far as the Reservists are concerned, dealing with people who have not the faintest idea when they are to be released. It seems to me that where we are dealing with such people, the period which was put into the 1944 Act is the right one to put into this Bill.
7.0 p.m.
I do not suppose that the acceptance or refusal of this Amendment will affect many reinstatement rights. The great majority of those to whom it can apply will be aware of them in time, and steps will be taken in time to prevent the doing of an injustice. But a small section of people, by reason of their own carelessness, may not avail themselves of their reinstatement rights in time. Nothing that I say in urging this Amendment will in any way diminish from my view that the sooner the people exercise their rights the better it will be.
It is in the interests of their employers, as well as in their own interests, for these men to know quickly how they stand. On the other hand, the fact remains that there

could be a small minority of people who, by reason of the very restricted period laid down in the 1948 Act, could be denied the exercise of these rights. I have an intense dislike of procedural limitations of time which deny people the opportunity to ask for rights which they believe they have; though it is proper in some cases that things should be brought to a conclusion before a long period has elapsed. However, it seems to me that the period of time laid down in the 1944 Act offers a solution of the conflicting claims of the two interests to which I have referred.
I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, and if he does not see his way to accept it, he may be able to assist the Committee by telling us what the results were under the 1944 Act. His Department must have practical experience of how the scheme actually worked. For my part, I have never heard of any difficulty in regard to that period. The right hon. Gentleman has sources of information which are denied to us on this side, and I hope he will give the information. We are not suggesting an untried proposition, but something which has worked perfectly satisfactorily over a period of several years. It is in the hope of eliminating the possibility of an occasional injustice, even an injustice caused by a man's own carelessness, that we feel that a longer period is required.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has dealt with the matter in his usual clear way, and there are one or two points with which I should like to deal. I do not think we should make special provision for the person who is careless. He ought not to have any reasons for carelessness, because under the arrangement we are now making no difficulty should exist. No man can be told months in advance, as in the old days, when he is coming out, but certain steps will be taken. Leaflets will be distributed by the authorities to the men who are getting near their discharge date. Further, these men will be given, first of all, a broad indication of when they are coming out, and then later on a precise indication of their release date. So it will be seen that every step will be taken to ensure that they will be given proper facilities for making such arrangements as are necessary.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the period in the existing Act and the longer period under the 1944 Act, and he also referred to the breathing time between leaving the Forces and going back to work. It should be remembered that the men who were being catered for under the 1944 Act may have served four, five or six years. The House decided, when the existing Act came into operation, that there was not the same reason for giving such a long period of interim relief to men who had been called up for a relatively short period. Therefore, we cannot agree that we should go back to the long period.
There is, however, something in what was said by the hon. Gentleman. What I am prepared to do, if the Amendment is withdrawn, is to introduce an Amendment in another place. I am sorry that I could not get the Amendment ready while the Bill was passing through this House, and it is not satisfactory to produce manuscript Amendments at the last moment. The wording of the present Amendment is a little confusing, which is why we cannot accept it, but what I will propose in the new Amendment to be produced in another place is that we should insert "the third Monday" instead of "the fifth Monday," and "21 days" instead of "four weeks." That would give an extra week in each ease in which to make application. That would be an extension of the present period but not to the length to which the hon. Member has asked. Except for the Korean Reservists, about whom I shall say a little later on, we are dealing with men who have given service for 18 months or two years, against men who served for four, five or six years and for whom the longer time was provided.

Mr. McCorquodale: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, in the very sensible remarks which he made on Second Reading, promised that he would consider this question before the Report stage, and a little further on he undertook that he would have a further look at it before the Committee stage and
… see if there is anything we can do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 380.]
The Minister has gone some way to meet us today. I can recall the discussions we had at the Ministry of Labour on the 1944 Act as to what was the appropriate

period on the one side as against the very real desirability of getting the men back to work as quickly as possible. We did not want to draw it so tight as to make it virtually impossible for some men to retain their rights. I realise that in the main we are dealing with two-year Reservists, and that when they come out they will be serving for a shorter period than did those during the war, though the shorter period may be longer than under the original 1948 Act. Therefore, I would not oppose the right hon. Gentleman, as he has gone some way to meet us.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has been very conciliatory in this matter and none of us, particularly in the circumstances of the last few days, wants to take any step which will delay the passing into law of this Bill. I am not very happy about only going from the second to the third Monday, for I doubt whether that goes far enough, but I am a little bit encouraged by the fact that we can rely on the proviso to Section 36 (2) of the 1948 Act, which gives a discretion to the Minister if application is not made in time because of sickness or some other reasonable cause. Perhaps, before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, as I intend to do, the right hon. Gentleman will indicate his intention of exercising his power under that proviso in all reasonable circumstances.

Mr. Isaacs: I am glad to give the undertaking, not merely that we shall operate it, but as to the right of the individual to claim that opportunity and to go to the umpire.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MCCORQUODALE:

(APPLICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS (WAR SERVICE) ACT, 1939.)
The provisions of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, with such adaptations and amendments as the Minister may by order determine, shall be deemed to apply to any persons to whom section one of the present Act applies.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche): The proposed new Clause is out of order, because it goes beyond the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Leather: On a point of order, Mr. Touche. In view of your Ruling, may I point out that the proposed new Clause relates to the position of local government staffs, and ask the Minister whether he will be able to take care of this matter in any other way?

The Temporary Chairman: The proposed new Clause is out of order altogether.

New Clause.—(SERVICE IN KOREA.)

Where any person on or after the fifteenth day of July nineteen hundred and fifty, voluntarily undertook to serve whole time in or with the regular forces whether for the period of the present emergency in Korea, or for a period of eighteen months for service in Korea, that person shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a person who has entered upon a period of whole time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown in pursuance of a notice providing for the calling out on permanent service of a reserve force.—[Mr. Low.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause seeks to bring within the ambit of the Bill men who volunteered, at the request of the War Office at the beginning of August or the end of July, for 18 months' service with the colours or for such period during which they might be required. The Committee should be aware of the sort of men who were involved. This 18 months form of short-service engagement was not open to everybody but only to men who had served previously for at least 18 months. They had to be below the age of 30 and to have been released or discharged since 1st January, 1946, that is to say during the four and a half years.
7.15 p.m.
They were asked to put in this extra service on the ground of national interest at a time when we were perilously short of manpower. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with me that it was hoped that by getting these men to come forward it would be possible to expedite the despatch of men from the United Kingdom to Korea. The men answered the call in a patriotic spirit, and the Committee should be very careful to

see that we treat them with true fairness and at least as well as we treat men who were called up at that time.
We may have to consider once again the difference, as the right hon. Gentleman has put it to the Committee, between one type of short-service engagement and another. I noticed with regret that the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading debate indicated that the Minister had decided not to make any provision in the Bill for these men. Having referred to Korea and the 18 months' short-service men, he said:
We considered this position but found, on balance, that we could hardly include in this Bill this and other types of short-term engagements which were not fundamentally different from other short-term engagements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 378.]
I hope that the argument on an Amendment to an earlier Clause in the Bill will have convinced the Minister that it is possible to distinguish between one type of short-term engagement and another. At any rate, so far as these men are concerned, we can distinguish purely by length of service.
Here is an engagement of only 18 months. There is no question of three or four years. There are no engagements of a Regular type for such a short period. One should also remember, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that these men were ex-Service men and that when they volunteered for an extra 18 months they accepted the obligations of Regular reservists who are covered in the Bill. They were voluntarily extending their reservist obligations at a time when we wanted men very badly. I beseech the Minister to see what he can do to get these men within the ambit of the Bill.
In regard to the difficulties to which he referred at an earlier point this afternoon. I am sure that a period of 18 months will not really worry patriotic employers at all, because they will willingly accept a reinstatement obligation in cases of that kind. I have stated the case for these men as I see it. I would express my regret, and I do it in no partisan spirit, that the right hon. Gentleman has not found it possible between the Second Reading and now to put in a Clause of his own to bring these patriotic men within the Bill.

Mr. McCorquodale: Mr. McCorquodale rose—

Mr. Isaacs: I think I can save a good deal of time for the Committee. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), will not expect me to follow through his arguments when I tell him that I accept the principle of his proposed new Clause and what he has in mind, and that I shall have an Amendment drafted to put into the Bill.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am very grateful to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The consciences of all of us were a little unhappy after the Second Reading when we realised that men who had volunteered for service to the country when there were all sorts of harrowing tales about the fighting in Korea were being deliberately excluded from what others were getting. It seemed a little incongruous, to say the least of it. I was a little unhappy on that point, and therefore I am delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Low: I was also delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said. I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(DUTY OF EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION.)

Where under this Act there is an obligation on an in to offer any person reinstatement in civil employment, who, immediately preceding his entry upon a period of whole time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, was occupying a service dwelling, the obligation on the employer shall be deemed to include an obligation to offer accommodation not less suitable and of no lower standard than that which the aforesaid person occupied prior to his entry upon a period of whole time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown.—[Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause covers a very difficult point, and one for which I feel sure the Committee will appreciate it is extremely difficult to legislate. At the same time it is a very important point if we are to be assured that Reservists, in particular, are to be fairly treated. If a man is called to the Colours either as a National Service man or as a Reservist and he is in occupation of a service house attached to the

industry in which he works, as far as I can see he is not covered for equivalent accommodation when he leavew the Services.
A Reservist called to the Colours might have been occupying a service house in connection with his employment by British Railways. On his being called to the Colours his place might be filled by another man to whom the house might be handed over for the purpose of his employment by British Railways. The result would be that that accommodation would not be available for the Reservist when he left the Forces.
Two troubles would result from this. The first would be that the Reservist recalled to the Colours would be gravely apprehensive about what would happen to his family. The second one might be that on his return from the Forces he might find himself debarred from reemployment because no service accommodation was available to him and consequently he would not live as near his job as was proved to be essential by the mere fact that he was considered to require a service house by the undertaking employing him.
It may be considered that this is not the right way to deal with the matter, but I feel certain that the Committee will agree that it is a point upon which an assurance must very definitely be given to the Reservist or National Service man when he is called up. It would be very bad if the Committee allowed any doubt whatsoever to exist in the mind of such a man. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance either that he will consider the matter or that the danger is not where we think it lies.
I stress a further point. I hope the Minister will not plead that this is not a very serious matter because it has not arisen in the past. A comparatively new situation has arisen in the last few months, in particular, in relation to the calling up of Reservists. During the war many men who were called up were able to leave their families in service houses to which they were able to return when they were released from the Forces for the very simple reason that those men were not replaced in their industries. In the curious situation of the cold war, this is not quite the case and a man who is called up may find that someone


else is doing his job and now has the accommodation which he occupied. There is, therefore, a new problem, and to say that this has not proved very difficult in the past is not a fair answer to the argument which I have put forward.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the legal position in this matter? Is it a fact that the family of a man called up for service under the National Service Act could be evicted from a service cottage without an order of the court and that the court would not have to consider whether it was reasonable to give the employer possession in such a case?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That raises only one side of the problem. First of all, there is the question of eviction. During the war there were hardly any troubles of that nature, largely because men who were called to the Colours were not replaced. In many cases industries replaced their men in the Forces by people accommodated in the hostels which were set up, and therefore the need for accommodation on the spot was not felt in such a vital way as it would be now. As to whether the court would give an order for eviction, we must take some cognisance of the fact that that depends to a considerable degree on the urgency of the plea by the industry or undertaking owning the service house.
Even then the hon. Member did not quite cover the point. What happens when the man returns? I ask him and the Committee to remember that the position of the Reservist in these matters is far more critical and difficult than that of the man called up for National Service. The Reservist may well be a man who had made his way and established himself after some years in the industry in which he was engaged, and he is more likely to be in some such trouble as this than the younger National Service man who has not had so long to establish himself in his industry. For those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman either to accept the Clause or to give some assurance that the point will be or is fully covered.

Major Legge-Bourke: This is a very human problem and it arouses sympathy automatically, but I can see that

there are difficulties. What we have to accept is that in the Bill we are admitting that the relationship between some employers and their employees is not all that might be desired. It would be highly desirable if we could be quite sure that every employer would do the honourable thing by his employees who were called up. However, we have to face the fact that some of them will not, and the Bill tries to make sure that everyone is treated as fairly as possible.
Nevertheless, I see some difficulties in the new Clause. It is not that I am in the least unsympathetic to the case which my hon. Friend has made. I am very sympathetic towards it, and one or two cases in my own constituency have arisen out of the recent call-up; but I believe that this is not a burden which only the employer should have to bear. After all, employers are not the only people who provide houses these days. Local housing authorities ought to come into this. The moment we start discussing that, Sir Charles, you will probably be calling us to order for going outside the scope of the Bill. However, this is a matter upon which the Minister might very well consult the Minister of Health to see whether he can come to workable arrangements whereby the families of these men will be looked after by the local housing authorities and the local housing authorities will make sure when the man returns he is properly housed until the employer can offer him the tied cottage which he originally occupied.

Mr. Isaacs: I think I had better keep strictly to what is covered by the Bill and not roam into local authority spheres. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing), said that the danger might not be where it appears to lie. I hope to prove that, and to show the Committee that the Clause is not only unnecessary but would make the position less favourable than it is now. We had no idea on the Second Reading of this Bill that the tied cottage could be related to it, and therefore I was not armed with any information. However, after further examination, I am able to give some definite information.
7.30 p.m.
There have been two cases upon which this point has arisen and which have been decided by the Umpire, who is the highest statutory authority for deciding disputed


applications for reinstatement. In one of these the Deputy Umpire stated:
The application is to reinstate the applicant in the occupation in which he was last employed by the former employer before the beginning of his war service and on terms and conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him in that occupation had he not become a person to whom the Act applied.
To reinstate the applicant without the use of the cottage was not "on terms and conditions not less favourable to him." The Deputy Umpire decided that the employer should give the applicant possession of the cottage within eight weeks of the date of his decision. The decision in the second case was on the same lines.
I am an economist and I wonder whether I can be economical in words now. Need I point out further to the Committee that this is the law as laid down now and that these people are fully covered by it? Perhaps in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the new Clause, which I would point out is much less favourable than the decisions given by the Umpire.

Mr. Harrison: Could my right hon. Friend indicate when those judgments were given? Was it during the war or immediately afterwards, when housing accommodation was not so acute as it is now?

Mr. Isaacs: It was in 1946. So they are entitled to the house as well as to their job.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am glad to hear the news given by the right hon. Gentleman, on the point on which I ventured to pull up the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading. At that time, speaking extempore, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was not possible to enforce what the Umpire said should be done and, speaking from memory of the Act, I said I thought that reinstatement committees would rule as the Umpire did. It has been useful to raise this point in Parliament because there may be a number of people throughout the country who do not know their rights in this respect. There may even be some reinstatement committees which have not met this problem before, and which will now realise that case law has been made on the subject, and therefore will have no hesitation in dealing with the applicants. I am glad

that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to satisfy us in this regard.

Mr. Harrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) spoke of the necessity for obtaining a court eviction order when a man leaves his occupation to go into the Services and his employer requires the cottage for his successor in the job. May I place on record the fact that in the railway industry, when there is an application by the British Transport Commission for one of those cottages which are tied to a job, inevitably the court gives occupation to the applicant and the family of the Service man is evicted from that cottage. They are probably given some notice, but inevitably the decision is that they must vacate it.
We feel that this can be unduly burdensome on the relatives of the Service man. This is particularly so when it comes to the reinstatement of a railway man. We understand that in the case, say, of a gatehouse keeper there is no possible chance of the Service man coming back to that cottage unless his successor leaves the job. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that there are difficulties in regard to the tied cottage which must be looked at carefully in a Bill of this kind if we are to get the benefit we wish for all grades of workers.
Another feature which gives rise to feeling amongst our workers is that tied cottages are now more than ever the practice. Companies are purchasing dwelling houses and using them to an extent never dreamed of before. So a set of circumstances is arising which will make for a completely different position in the law of reinstatement, not only to the job but to the amenities attached to it. The Minister should bear these matters in mind when giving us the assurance that this ruling of the Umpire will be applicable to such cases if they arise. I was pleased to hear the assurance because I had some doubts, until I heard it, whether it would stretch to the cases I have in mind.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I was pleased to hear what the Minister had to say, but not quite so happy about what the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) has just said. The hon. Gentleman has put some doubts into my mind, and I can only hope that the Minister will look into what the hon. Member said.


In view of that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the pensions and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who administer justice, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of

(i) any lump sum or widow's or children's pensions payable under the said Act of the present Session, if and so far as it is directed by that Act to be so paid; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under section twenty of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, are to he so paid;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of

(i) any such lump sum or widow's or children's pensions as aforesaid, if and so far as it is directed by the said Act to be so paid;
(ii) such part of any pension for service as President of the Transport Tribunal as is directed by the said Act to be so paid;
(iii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or the Superannuation Act, 1949, are payable out of moneys so provided;
(iv) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, fall to be so paid;
(v) any administrative expenses incurred by any Government Department attributable to the passing of the said Act;

(c) the payment into the Exchequer of

(i) the refund of any part of a lump sum payable under the said Act, if and so far as it is directed by the said Act to he so paid;
(ii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under the Superannuation Act, 1949, fall to be so paid.

WAYS AND MEANS

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS)

Resolution reported:
That no relief shall be given under section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918, or any other provision of the Income Tax Acts

providing for relief for income tax purposes. in respect of contributions towards the cost of pensions to or for the benefit of the widow or children of the contributor, being contributions made under any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the pensions and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who administer justice.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]

1.—(REDUCTION OF PENSION IN RETURN FOR BENEFITS UNDER S. 2.)

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "quarter," and to add "eighth."
Under the Bill every judge, and indeed, every judicial officer to whom the Bill applies, who is appointed after it becomes an Act, will receive only three-quarters of the pension to which his predecessors would have been entitled. The present holders of the offices listed in the Schedule have the option of deciding whether to retain their present rates of pension or to accept the provisions of the Bill. Their successors will not have that option if the Bill goes through in its present form. It is for that reason, amongst others, that it is particularly incumbent upon us to satisfy ourselves that the proposals contained in the Bill are right, fair, and beneficial to all who come within its scope.
No one will dissent from the proposition that the State should be a model employer, both with regard to pay and pensions, and in dealing with both judges and civil servants. In the Bill we cannot tonight deal with pay, but we can make sure that those who come within its scope, after their retirement from the public service, receive a proper pension. As I have said, under the Bill every new holder of one of these offices will give up a quarter of his pension. In return he will receive a lump sum of twice the amount of his annual reduced pension. If he dies before retirement, his family will receive twice the amount of the reduced pension or the last annual salary, whichever is the greater.
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for the answer published in HANSARD of 24th November to my written Question. It appears from that answer that the provision whereby the families of certain judicial officers can have a sum equal to the officer's last annual salary, if it is larger than twice the amount of the pension, will benefit only the families of the Lord Chancellor, Lords of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls.
It is also clear from what was said on Second Reading that this exchange of a quarter of a pension for a lump sum free of Income Tax and Estate Duty places no burden upon the Exchequer, although, I suppose, there might be some loss of tax. It may be argued that this exchange will in a considerable number of cases be a financial advantage to the Exchequer, and I hope to satisfy the Committee that this is so. It is a factor which we should take into account in determining whether it is right to reduce the pension by as much as a quarter in every case.
Taking, for example, the position of a married county court judge with one child, the effect of the Clause as it stands will be that he is deprived of £333 per annum of his pension. In return, he will get a lump sum of £1,000—not £2,000, because £1,000 of that £2,000 will go in contribution for the benefits to be received by his wife, if she succeeds him, and by his child, if under the age of 16 at the time of his death. This means that, after tax, the reduced pension of the county court judge, who is married and has one child, will be £794 a year instead of, now, after tax, £1,008. That is to say—if my mathematics are correct, and I think that they are—it follows that the county court judge, in return for the lump sum of £1,000 and the possible benefit for his widow and his child, is giving up a net amount of £214 a year.
After five years of retirement, the £1,000 lump sum would be more than swallowed up by that sacrifice. If the county court judge lived more than five years in retirement, then for every succeeding year it would seem that the Exchequer would gain an advantage from the proposals contained in the Clause.

Mrs. Eirene White: Is the hon. and learned Member taking into account this time the effect of tax? He

did not do so last time, when my arithmetic was correct and his was not.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would not accept that the hon. Lady's arithmetic was correct last time or, indeed, on any occasion without checking it. I assure her that these figures have not only been calculated by me, but have been carefully checked by an accountant.

Mrs. White: Without tax?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes, without tax. I have made it clear that I was showing the position after deduction of tax. That is the position of a county court judge, married and with one child, who is entitled to full pension—but he is only entitled to full pension if he has served as a county court judge for 15 years. One arrives, therefore, at the rather curious position that while it would be to the advantage of the family of the Lord Chancellor or of a Lord of Appeal if the holders of those offices were to die while in office, it would certainly be to the advantage of the wife of the county court judge to keep her husband at work for as many years as possible.
I ask the Committee also to consider the position of a county court judge retiring after, say, five years' service because of a permanent incapacity. His gross pension—that is to say, before deduction of tax—will be £500 a year. He will get a lump sum of £500. The pension of his widow would be only £116 a year, or just over £2 a week. The pension for one child is £43. This does not appear to me to be a very generous provision for a man who has permanently broken down whilst in the service of the State.

Mr. H. Hynd: After five years' service?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes; after five years' service, that is the figure. The figure I gave earlier was after 15 years' service. Neither, in my submission, is very generous provision for county court judges who have served the State in the law.
My argument is that we should not reduce the pension by as much as is proposed in the Bill. Everyone will agree that judges, both of the High Court and the county court, carry a great responsibility and must maintain a certain posi-


tion in the community. To do their onerous duties properly, they must be free from financial worry, independent, and not bothered about how to discharge a tailor's bill while trying to listen attentively to a dull case. There was some reference to this on Second Reading, when my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) referred to the fact that this freedom from financial worry was really a safeguard for the poor man who comes before the courts that he will receive impartial justice.
In the table which he has so kindly published, the Attorney-General has set out the full financial effects so far as they can be calculated of the Bill before deduction of tax. It appears there that the county court judge's salary is now £2,000 a year. But there are no fewer than 26 county court registrars now drawing the same salary and there are two county court registrars drawing a salary in excess of that drawn by the county court judge. Two are getting more than the judge presiding over their courts. I do not for a moment dispute that county court registrars hold responsible positions, but their jurisdiction is limited and I do not think anyone with any knowledge of the position would say that the duties of the registrar and the county court judge are in any way comparable.
I do not think anyone would deny that the county court judge's responsibilities are far greater than those of the registrar. Yet, after this Bill takes effect a county court registrar will be able to secure a higher pension during his retirement, a larger lump sum and death gratuity, a larger widow's pension and a larger children's benefit. It may be asked, "How does this come about?" The answer is that registrars are civil servants. They came within the recommendations of the Chorley Committee and, in consequence, no fewer than 56 of them received increases of salaries.
Not only they, but also other minor judicial officers mentioned in the First Schedule, masters of the Supreme Court, Chancery masters, taxing masters, all can earn more in salary than can a county court judge. Their maximum is £2,500 a year. Official referees have £2,000 and registrars of the Probate Admiralty and Bankruptcy Division have a maximum of £2,500.
The effect of this Bill as it stands will be that all these minor judicial officers—minor in comparison with county court judges—will get a higher pension on retirement, and their widows will have a larger benefit and a larger children's benefit. The only persons who will have no increase are those both of the High Court and the county court who bear the honourable title of His Majesty's judges. This Bill proposes that those categories, not having had any increase of pay, the High Court and county court judges, will be deprived of a quarter of their pension. In my submission it is clear that their comparative position with other minor judicial officers has deteriorated and, on this ground alone, we should see that their pension is not reduced as much as is proposed.
I also put the case for this Amendment on another ground. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will agree that it really is very doubtful whether some of the present county court judges could afford and can afford to enter the scheme outlined in this Bill. Of course the present county court judge will have an option, but the future county court judge will have no option whatever if the Bill is passed in its present form.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): He is quite at liberty to accept the terms, or not. I am going to have something to say about the views of those from whom county court judges will be recruited in the future, but in the future a candidate to the county court bench will not be bound to accept appointment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is no direction of labour to the county court bench, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that unless the terms are fair and reasonable he will not be so likely to get recruits to that bench of the character he desires.

The Attorney-General: That is a question of salaries as opposed to pension. I do not entirely disagree with the views of the hon. and learned Member about salaries.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I say it applies both to salaries and pensions. I am trying to deal as shortly as I can with a rather complicated matter. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees


with me I shall be interested to hear him, but I think he will agree when I say that it is very doubtful that some of the present county court judges will be able to afford to enter into the scheme. After all they will have to manage on more than £200 less in income a year after 15 years' service and I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deny that some county court judges, unless they have private means, are now finding it impossible to maintain their standard of living, which is inseparable from their position if the status of the county court is not to be seriously impaired.
I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that some of the county court judges have the greatest difficulty in carrying on. I am also sure that unless the pay and pension are improved—as they both go together—there will be increasing difficulty in getting new recruits. Indeed, if something is not done—and done soon—I think there is a real risk of the administration of justice deteriorating, if not breaking down. I recognise that we cannot do much about that situation in this Bill, but we can at least secure that not only the county court judges but the other officers referred to in the Measure do obtain proper pensions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has on many occasions, including the Second Reading of this Bill, expressed himself as sympathetic on the salary question—

Mr. Hector Hughes: This is the second time the hon. and learned Gentleman has made reference to the deterioration of the county court bench. Earlier he made a reference to the danger of litigants not getting justice from county court judges paid as they are today. In justice to county court judges, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should say that he is not suggesting that the litigants are not getting justice from county court judges.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I never said anything which was capable of any such interpretation. I did not say anything to the effect that the benches were deteriorating. I said that the position of the county court judges in comparison with the position of the other minor judicial officers listed in the Schedule was deteriorating and if the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), would consider the Schedule, he

would see that that is amply established. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with the other part of the interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Before that interruption I had mentioned that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed himself as sympathetic on the salaries question, but, in dealing with it he has referred—and may again in dealing with this pensions argument—to other lowly paid workers in other spheres. I am surprised that he has advanced that argument, which really is not tenable in view of the fact that the Chorley Committee's recommendations have been carried into effect with regard to so many civil servants. The question does arise, if this provision can be made for civil servants, why cannot it be made for judges? More than sympathy is required; it is action which is wanted and I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman could announce that he is introducing a Bill to deal with it.
As I say, we cannot increase the salaries by this Bill, but we can at least secure that the servants of the State receive a proper pension on which to live in their retirement. I do not believe that three-quarters of their present pension after taxation is enough for county court judges, or indeed for many others in the list although the table which has been published shows that all others except the Sheriff of Aberdeen, the salaried sheriff substitutes and clerks of assize can get higher pensions than the county court judges. This cut of a quarter of the pension is too much. The three-quarters which would be left is not sufficient. These retired servants of the State deserve well of their country, and it is for those reasons that I am moving this Amendment to diminish the reduction from a quarter to one-eighth.
8.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to ask a few questions about this Amendment. I listened with something like distress to this pitiful recital of the story of a sweated industry; but some of the figures which were supplied in the answer to the Question to which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), referred, especially those which related to the higher paid persons mentioned in this Bill, make me rather of the opinion that if we accepted this Amendment we should be


treating the higher paid judges too generously. We have been told that the State should be a model employer but, judging from the figures given in the answer to which I have already referred, the State is being asked to be a super-model employer towards the higher paid judicial gentlemen.
I have tried to work out what this Amendment would mean in practice. So far as I can see, it means that the Lord Chancellor, instead of getting a pension of £72 a week, would have it raised to £84 a week. This is in addition to the receipt by the Lord Chancellor of a lump sum of £7,500, a death gratuity of £10,000 and a widow's pension of £1,250 a year. How would the Amendment apply to the Lord Chief Justice? If it were agreed to, we should be raising the pension of the Lord Chief Justice from £58 a week to £67 a week, and this in addition to a death gratuity of £8,000 and a widow's pension of £1,000 a year. Whatever case of hardship may be made in respect of county court judges, I cannot think that the Committee would be justified in increasing the pensions of people who are very well paid.
The Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice will have had many years in the legal profession during which they will presumably have been very well paid. The process of becoming a Lord Chancellor is a long one, and I presume there may be some potential Lord Chancellors and Lord Chief Justices here. I do not know how these high salaries will appeal to the ordinary man. Before a person becomes Lord Chancellor he has to be perhaps Solicitor-General or hold some other legal office, and he will presumably have commanded some of the highest fees at the Bar for about 15 or 20 years, and will have had an opportunity to save. If he has been a wise and prudent person, he will have saved and invested a substantial sum.
It is all very well making these appeals for legal gentlemen, but how would paying heed to them affect all the other salaries of civil servants and municipal employees who are legal gentlemen, such as town clerks and the clerks to county councils? The result would be the payment of inflated pensions and salaries to gentlemen who are, on the whole, very well paid as compared with other members of the community. I suggest that those Members of the Committee who are in-

terested in the legal profession should be satisfied with the sums outlined in the Bill, without seeking the additional sums suggested in this Amendment.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I thought it most unfortunate that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should have seen fit to quote as examples the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice when dealing with this Amendment. He gave a figure of something like £72 per week as against £58. At first sight that does, of course, appear to be an enormous rise, but has the hon. Member taken the trouble to see how much more per week that increase would mean to those two individuals after payment of Income Tax and Surtax? The difference would be very slight. It would be a matter of sixpences rather than pounds.
The hon. Member also said that of course these gentlemen—and there are not many of them—have to be of some eminence and ability to rise to such a position, and that they will have had opportunities throughout their career to save. Has the hon. Member considered the difference between saving now and saving before the war? We have often heard that judges' salaries have not been increased since 1831—that is, something like 119 years ago—but it is to the last 19 years that I would refer the hon. Member. Before the war it was quite possible for anyone at the Bar who had the ability to rise to be either a county court judge or a High Court judge to save upwards of £20,000 to £25,000 during the 15 or 18 years of really lucrative practice that he would enjoy. Even before the war it was very difficult to save much more unless the person concerned happened to be one of those extraordinary people who was able to earn at a super-high rate. Today he is robbed of that £25,000 lump sum.
It is suggested that, in return for benefits given with the other hand—and in this Bill the Government take something away with one hand and give it back with the other, so that nobody is really better off—his pension should be reduced. That pension, due to the high cost of living, the war and various other matters into which I cannot go, because it would be out of order to do so, has been cut by half. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider taxation, which has almost doubled, Surtax, which has rocketed to the skies, the Purchase Tax, which the recipient of the


pension has to meet in the shops and the increased cost of living all along the line. All that means that the miserable pittance of a pension—one can only describe it as that—has been cut by more than a half.
It has always been the proud boast of hon. Gentlemen opposite, both in this House and at meetings, that as a result of their administration everybody is so much better off. I am certain that the last people whom they would wish to deprive of that benefit are the judges, even to the extent of this very small degree the granting of which I am now advocating. Let me quote as an example a High Court judge. After serving for 15 years, he has great responsibilities which must fall upon him. There is his clerk to be considered. No provision is made for the judge's clerk, and every judge today must, out of conscience, provide for him.
I was speaking to a judges clerk in the Temple the other day. He told me that when his master was earning a great income at the Bar, he did extremely well. Loyal and faithfully he followed his master in the latter's service as a judge. He served him on circuit at assizes and in London at the meagre salary of £650 a year for 15 years. When that judge retired the clerk was given 14 days' notice in which to tidy up his master's affairs, and that was the end. There was not so much as a letter of thanks from the Treasury, not even a tiny gratuity to see him through the difficult months which must ensue for a judge's clerk when he has to look around for other employment. That responsibility today must, out of conscience, fall upon the judge himself. That means he may have to keep his clerk going for possibly six months, possibly for a year in order that the clerk's family may be kept alive until he can find another job.
This Amendment is asking very little indeed of the Government, but it would improve this Bill because it endeavours to bring the judges into line with the rest of the country, if only on the pension basis. I am sure that hon. Members opposite, who are so proud of what they consider they have achieved for the people of this country in improving conditions, would be the very last themselves to want to place the judges in a condition of some penury.

Mrs. Eirene White: Several hon. Members opposite have

made eloquent pleas for two depressed classes, the clerks and the county court judges, with whom I think people on this side have considerable sympathy, but neither of those pleas has any logical connection whatever with the Amendment. They are matter that might be discussed on some other occasion, but they do not affect the arguments for reducing the pension by one-quarter or by one-eighth for all the persons mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill. I was interested to notice that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who moved the Amendment, reserved his eloquence for county court judges because he thought he had rather a better case, whereas on Second Reading he referred to High Court judges.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. Lady had followed my argument she would have found that I referred on the occasion of the Second Reading, as I did on this occasion, to both High Court and county court judges.

Mrs. White: I was referring to the more eloquent and more lengthy part of the hon. and learned Member's speech. It was a bachelor High Court judge who, for some reason, had the greatest sympathy from the hon. and learned Gentleman. Taking the figure of £3,500 after 15 years' service and, with the assistance of the Inland Revenue authorities, working out what the tax would be on the sums concerned—either the present pension or the pension reduced by one-quarter—I found that it was perfectly correct to say that the lump sum, which is tax free, received in lieu of the reduced pension, would last for approximately 15 years. That is taking no account of any interest which one might receive on the lump sum. I understand that there is no fixed age for retirement for High Court judges. I am told it is 72 for county court judges. If, for the purposes of argument, one takes 72 as the retirement age for High Court judges, one can live happily and comfortably until one is 87 on the present proposals, without detriment. In fact, if one took the lump sum one could go a little bit longer.
If one takes the Amendment, which asks for a one-eighth instead of a one-quarter reduction, and one makes a similar calculation, allowing for the fact that the tax on the higher proportion of pension is at a higher rate, the period


works out at approximately 37 years. Therefore, one could live happily to the age of 109 before one was at a disadvantage in any way. In other words, what the Opposition Amendment is trying to do is not to concern itself with the widows or orphans but with seeing that all the persons in the Schedule, irrespective of status or means, do in fact have a very much increased pension.
I feel that those of us who have looked into the matter properly and worked out the calculations correctly would not be inclined to support a Measure—leaving aside a special plea for clerks and county court judges—which would mean a very considerable increase for most people at the taxpayer's expense, unless they happened to live to an extremely ripe age.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Gage: I should like to make a plea on behalf of what the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) I suppose would call yet a third class of the judicial oppressed. It is a plea on behalf of His Majesty's judges in Northern Ireland, which I think has not been heard so far. That is not to say that I do not agree completely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said about county court judges and about judges' clerks. It is too often forgotten that the pension of the judge's clerk morally has to come out of the judge's pension, because no other provision is made for it.
Everything said with force about those cases applies with equal force to the case of His Majesty's judges in Northern Ireland. The reason why nothing has been said so far about their position is that up to a week ago there was no copy of this Bill in Northern Ireland and so it was difficult for them to decide how this matter was going to affect them. Their salary, which was originally £3,500, was cut in 1926 by £500. That general cut in salaries made in 1926 was eventually restored in all cases, except in the case of His Majesty's judges in Northern Ireland. The ground given for the smaller salary and smaller pension in Northern Ireland was that it is a smaller place and there is less work to do, and to some extent that is true. But I am sure that the Lord Advocate will agree with me that because Scotland is somewhat

smaller than England it is all the more important that the judges who work there should be in a position to live detached lives. Everything is smaller and closer and therefore the judge, from sheer necessity and not because he wants to be so, must be in a position to live a detached life.
What was considered adequate in 1926 is obviously no longer adequate, either in respect of salary or in respect of pensions. Indeed, the High Court judge in Northern Ireland who has small children to educate finds himself in the position of having to sell his house and perhaps to sell his motorcar and travel by bus to his court. It is not that he objects to travelling by bus as such—he did so frequently as a barrister—but it is difficult for a judge when he travels constantly with people who appear before him as witnesses, litigants or sometimes even in the dock. It is one of those things that ought to be avoided.
Therefore, the case for an increase for judges in Northern Ireland is stronger than any of the other cases, because their salary and pension are smaller than those of their brothers who do the same work in this country. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is the only way by which they can be given some dignity and comfort in the evening of their lives and, in those circumstances, it deserves the hearty support of this Committee.

The Attorney-General: We have had a wide, and in some cases, as in the case of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), moving discussion on the question of the salaries of His Majesty's judges, but this Bill, of course, deals not with their salaries but with their pensions. I hope that in discussing the various Amendments to the Bill in Committee we shall try to deal with the question of the judicial pensions. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in whose name the Amendment stands, will not think it right to press the Amendment to a Division.
Many of us want to improve the position of some of the judges. I have said personally more than once that I have great sympathy particularly with the position of the county court judges. I have made clear my personal view about this matter on the Second Reading of the


Bill and on other occasions, but I have also said—and I make no apology for saying it again—that in the existing circumstances of the country, when men and women living at very low wage levels have to be asked to make great sacrifices and exercise great restraint, and are for the most part responding loyally to the demands that are put on them in that respect, we have to go carefully about the improvement of the position of the judges, and we have to accomplish it by stages which are acceptable to the country as a whole.
I do not think that the case for the judges is improved by the hyperbole of expression, by the extravagance of language, which is sometimes used. It does not really help to parade before the country phrases such as that which was used by one hon. Member when he said that the judges' pension was a miserable pittance. It does not help those who would like to see the position of the judges improved to say that their remuneration at the present time is scandalously low, as someone else suggested.
The present Amendment and some of the speeches which have been made in support of it from the opposite side of the Committee are really a classic example, so far as concerns those of us who sympathise with the position of the judges, of the better being the enemy of the good. This Bill is really in danger of that kind of Amendment. Here is a Bill which proposes to accomplish something good so far as it goes—something which the judges of this country certainly greatly welcome.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: High Court and county court judges?

The Attorney-General: Certainly. Here I pause to deal with an intervention made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I would certainly assert—and I think the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South would agree with me in this—that the standard of His Majesty's judges has never been higher than it is today, and there is no indication whatever at present of any sign of deterioration amongst them. I should confidently assert exactly the contrary.
His Majesty's judges in this country, both those in the High Court and those in the county court, urgently desire that

this Bill should be passed. They think it is a good Bill. I have no doubt at all that they could draft a better Bill if they were in a position so to do. I have no doubt at all that they will continue to press the claims which they consider they have in regard to salaries, and which they are entitled to press. This Bill is entirely without prejudice to those claims. But His Majesty's judges in this country certainly want this Bill—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: His Majesty's judges in England?

The Attorney-General: Yes, in England.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been informed that some of the county court judges will not be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill?

The Attorney-General: That may well be so, but because the minority of the county court judges will not be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill and will exercise their option to contract out of it, they do not want to impose their position on the majority of judges who will greatly benefit from the Bill. I really do not see the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention.
I referred to the judges in this country; I meant the judges in England. As a matter of fact, I understand that the same position applies to the judges in Ireland. They did have some misgivings about the Bill. I think it would be fair to say that they wanted the Bill in regard to pensions associated with a Measure which would result in an increase in salaries as well, but that not being practicable at the moment, they themselves do not oppose this Bill. As to the existing members of the Irish Bench, as of the English Bench and the Scottish Bench, they can contract out of it. There is no doubt at all about those from whom future judges will be recruited in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will speak about the position of those in Scotland. There is no doubt at all about those from whom future judges will be recruited in England and in Northern Ireland, that the silks are unanimously in favour of this Bill.
I wrote to the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland only the other day—[Interruption]. I apprehend that that


remark had some reference to the incident which occurred in the House last Friday week. If that is so I regret it. I think that once these matters have been dealt with, and apologies have been accepted, they should not be raised again. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) departed from that principle of good manners earlier this evening. As to the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, there is no occasion for jeering about the matter. I wrote to ask him what was the view of the leaders of the Irish Bar about this Bill. He told me he had consulted all the leaders, and they were all unanimously in favour of this Bill.
I think that is perhaps more important than the views of the existing judges who can opt out of the Bill if they choose to. We have to consider the future position of their successors. Their successors are normally recruited from silks, and the silks of Northern Ireland are unanimously in favour of the Bill. It may be perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that here and there, if we take a hypothetical case of some future judge and examine it actuarially, the judge will be worse off under the new pension arrangements than he is today. That is quite possible, and I concede the point at once. That judge or that nominee for the Bench would examine what his future position would be if he became a judge and if, on doing so, he found that he would be worse off, that he would be in a position in which he could not afford to become a judge, then he would not be compelled to accept the appointment.
8.30 p.m.
The fact is that the great majority of future appointees to the Bench will be better off and, taking all the judicial officers as a whole, they will be £40,000 a year better off when this scheme is in full operation. That is the contribution which the State is to make towards this rearrangement of the pensions scheme. To say that a particular judge, if he accepts the appointment, may be worse off than he would be under the existing terms is neither here nor there, for the great majority of judges will be better off; they will share in the extra £40,000 which, if matters were left as they are, the State would not contribute at all.
There are two other points which are often forgotten in attempting an actuarial

calculation of the position of some hypothetical future judge. Often the Income Tax position is forgotten, and the fact that the lump sum escapes Income Tax, as it does, is a very important consideration. People often lose sight of that in estimating whether or not a particular individual will be better off or worse off under this scheme than he would be under the existing arrangements.
Another thing which is often forgotten is that the State, so to speak, has been at risk from the beginning of the judge's appointment. Some 20 years ago I took out a life insurance policy and, after 20 years, I thought it must have a good surrender value—20 multiplied by £x. I thought I should like that and I made an inquiry to find out what the surrender value was, but I was pained to find that it was nothing like 20 times the premium I had paid each year. I asked why that was, and the insurance company replied. "Do you not see—you have been on risk all the time and if you had died the day after you took out the policy we should have had to pay the insurance benefits, whatever they were."
Thus, the State will be at risk in regard to that judge from the day he is appointed, and if he dies the day after his appointment his estate will be entitled to the death gratuity, the widow's pension and the children's allowances—and that is something of very considerable commercial value. In trying to calculate whether a particular hypothetical judge, appointed at some future date, will be better off or worse off than he is now, one must take into account that from the moment of his appointment he is, under the new scheme obtaining cover for his widow and for his children which he never enjoyed before.
Now let me turn to the exact terms of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. The Bill as at present drafted proposes a reduction in the pension by one-quarter of what would otherwise have been the rate. That reduction is the actuarial equivalent of the lump sum or death gratuity which may be granted under Clause 2. As I explained to the House on Second Reading, that part of the scheme is not intended to involve any contribution from the State. It is simply a re-arrangement of the existing pensions provisions in regard to the judge and it has nothing to do with the widow's pension or the children's allowances.
To reduce the pension by only one-eighth instead of by one-quarter whilst giving the same lump sum as that provided under the existing scheme would ultimately involve an additional charge on the Exchequer of £45,000 a year—that is to say, double the cost of the whole of this pensions scheme, including the widow's and children's pensions put together. Of course, it would entirely alter the whole basis of this scheme, which is that it should be, if I may use the expression, a fifty-fifty scheme in which the State, broadly, makes a contribution equal to that made for a period by the judge.
Incidentally—and I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member has considered this; I think perhaps he has not, and I am sure the judges concerned will not thank him for the suggestion which he is making—to cut down the reduction in the pension and leave the lump sum as it is would destroy the basis on which the lump sum itself is paid free of Income Tax, and that is, of course, a vitally important matter in regard to the lump sum. The reason why the lump sum is payable free of Income Tax is that it is regarded as a capital payment compounding the pension which otherwise would have been paid, and it is because it is actuarially a compounding of the quarter of the pension that it does not attract Income Tax.
But immediately we depart from that calculation, and pay a lump sum which has no relation to the reduction in pension, and which is, in fact, twice as much, on any view, as the one-eighth of the pension which had been commuted, he would become liable to Income Tax and Surtax on that lump sum payment. The hon. and learned Gentleman must ask himself whether any judge would welcome the proposition he is now putting forward, that although his pension should be reduced by a quarter, the lump sum payment should be subject to Income Tax and Surtax at the full rate.
I hope I have satisfied the Committee that this Amendment is really not in the best interest of the great majority of judges. There may be one or two here or there who would be better off under the existing scheme. That is quite possible. On balance the judges who participate in this scheme are going to benefit to the tune of £40,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "In a full year?"] Starting

at £10,000 and rising to £40,000. They are going to be £10,000 better off as soon as the scheme comes into operation, and after 30 years £40,000 better off. Not only that. They are going to enjoy what most people regard in these days as something very important—a not insignificant lump sum free of tax altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "Without contributions."]
Having regard to these facts, and to the fact that the judge is going to be on cover from the moment of his appointment until his retirement, and until his death in regard to his wife and children, I ask the Committee to say that this is obviously a scheme which is beneficial to the judges as a whole; which is, as I said, desired by the majority of those in England and Scotland, as it is by those from whom judges will be recruited; and that we should not attempt to meddle with the scheme which they have accepted.

Mr. Grimond: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down may I ask him one question? He spoke earlier of all the members of the Bench and Bar in England and Northern Ireland, and in his closing remarks he referred to Scotland. Is it the case that the Bench in Scotland have approved this scheme? I had rather thought that, on behalf of their successors rather than themselves, they had raised considerable doubts.

The Attorney-General: I did say that I would leave that to the Lord Advocate. I am always a little nervous of treading on Scottish ground. Having heard from the Lord Advocate what the position was, it appeared to me far from clear. The Lord Advocate will, no doubt, explain the matter of the Scottish judges to the Committee at the appropriate stage. I think it may arise on the Amendment giving judges the option. What the Scottish judges have asked for is that not only existing members of the Bench should have the option but that future members should have the option as well—in other words, that they should get the best of both worlds. That is something which would upset the whole basis of the scheme. But the Committee may desire to leave the Scottish judges out of the Bill altogether. I do not think that they would welcome that. I do not understand that that is their position, but that they would like the position to be a little better than it is in this Bill.

Sir William Darling: For a few moments I should like to draw the Attorney-General's attention to what the Lord Advocate said on 20th November, 1950:
I should indicate to the House that, so far as Scotland is concerned, it is only the judges of the Court of Session who have indicated their lack of desire that this scheme should be applied to them. That opinion was expressed by 13 out of 14."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November. 1950; Vol. 481, c. 89.]
That opinion was expressed by 13 out of 14. It is a very significant qualification. The observations made regarding England and Wales and Northern Ireland are doubtless quite true and very convincing, but the suggestion that Scottish judges are largely in agreement with this proposal is quite at variance with the statement indicated by the Lord Advocate.
I have only one other observation to make in an attempt to meet what the Attorney-General has said. He said that this was a gift by the State of £40,000 or thereabouts. I draw his attention to the Explanatory Memorandum where it says:
The revised method of paying pensions will in the long run cost the State no more than the existing scheme.
If it is a gift of £40,000 and at the same time I am told that it is costing the State no more than the existing scheme, I have a little difficulty in finding which is true. Both statements cannot be true. Either this is an advantageous scheme or it is not, and in the opinion of 13 out of 14 Scottish judges it is a disadvantageous scheme. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the advantages which have been indicated are not of the measure suggested by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I must confess that I was completely dissatisfied with the reply of the Attorney-General. The question whether one welcomes a Bill or not is a matter of words. Obviously, this Bill is better than nothing, and I can well understand that if it were put to certain judges that they were to have either this Bill or nothing at all, there would be a unanimous view that this Bill was better than nothing. It is better than nothing. It does provide ultimately for £40,000 from public funds to be added, directly or indirectly, to the remuneration of judges, and to that extent it is a good Bill and to be welcomed. But our view,

on these benches, is that it is nothing like good enough.
The Attorney-General said that if this Amendment were accepted it would ultimately involve an additional burden of £45,000. I am very glad indeed to hear it. I think it is the least burden it should involve; it is the least that should be done for the judges. Whether or not it upsets actuarial calculations leaves me completely indifferent, because the plain fact of the matter is that until a Bill is brought forward to increase the salaries of the judges, this is the only way in which we can ventilate the matter. I suggest that their terms of service should be improved, and it does not bother me in the least bit to hear that actuarial calculations will be upset, or that it will cost £45,000 a year.
The real argument of the Attorney-General against the Amendment was that the "wage freeze" ought to apply to the judges. That, I gather, is the sort of view with which the anarchical Member for Ayshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would probably agree. I call him "anarchical" because he usually objects to most things, from whichever Front Bench they come. So far as the "wage freeze" is concerned, I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was completely frank with the Committee, because for certain judicial officers the "wage freeze" has been held not to apply.
Under the recommendations of the Chorley Committee certain salary increases have been granted. I have been given a document which indicates to me that the existing rate for registrars on fixed salaries, taking the 26 in the largest category, is £1,700, and the new rate is £2,000; for registrars on scale, in the case of 12 of them, which is the largest category, the existing scale is £1,500 to £1,700, which has gone up to £1,725 to £2,000. It may well be that those increases are very well justified, and if the Chorley Committee thought so they probably are. But those recommendations have been implemented, and I suggest that, having implemented those increases, it is illogical to talk of the "wage freeze" applying to other judicial officers. I have a long list of other people who have been given increases under the Chorley Committee's recommendations.
The point which we on these benches make is that at present county court


judges, in particular, are not being paid the rate for the job. This Government has littered the country and the community with large numbers of highly paid executives. The Prime Minister gets the equivalent of £100,000 a year—

Sir Herbert Williams: Three hundred and fifty thousand.

Mr. Lloyd: Anyhow, six figures. The full-time members of the Railway Executive get £5,000 a year. Our case is that at the present rate of remuneration the county court judges in particular are not adequately paid. Under this Bill a county court judge will have to maintain his wife and family on a pension of £1,000 a year; he will get a lump sum benefit of £2,000, and the only other benefit is the widow's pension of £333 and a small children's pension. We simply say that this is not enough, and that one way of improving that situation is to accept this Amendment, because this is a matter of status, and I think that the status of the Judicial officers of the country has to be maintained.
8.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) said something about judges after five years' service getting this pension. In the case of most of these people, they have done many years service in the legal profession before they become judges.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I say that my interjection was intended to express surprise that after so short a period of service as five years, a pension of that magnitude should be payable without contribution.

The Attorney-General: There may perhaps be some misunderstanding. As I said, so far as the judges are concerned—this does not apply to the lower officers—they are "on risk" from the beginning, and if they die the day after appointment their dependants get a lump sum—death gratuity as it is called—widow's pension and children's allowances. That is not so in the case of the Civil Service. That is one of the distinctions to the advantage of the judges which this Bill makes.

Mr. Lloyd: It was exactly that point, put from a different angle by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with which I was seeking to deal. The service of these people did not begin on the day they

were appointed judges. They had been members of the legal profession; many of them may have worked for 30 years before accepting that position. So far as the Civil Service is concerned, the normal course is for civil servants to enter on their pensionable service when they begin their employment.
So far as the county court judge is concerned, he probably has not made anything at all until he is 25. The people from whom future county court judges will be recruited will in many cases have sacrificed some years of lucrative employment by service during the war, and under existing rates of taxation they have not been able to accumulate a sum to give them sufficient what would be called "unearned income" by hon. Members opposite to enable them to retain in retirement the dignity and status of their job. I say quite definitely that at the present time the community is not paying these people enough, and one way of improving their conditions of service is to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want to query one argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that if the Amendment were accepted, the actuarial basis of the death gratuity would be altered, and the death gratuity would then become subject to taxation. Cans that be correct? I suggest that because the one-eighth reduction in pension which is now proposed would contribute to the total of the death gratuity. Would not that part therefore be tax-free? If the principle is accepted for the whole, the same principle must be accepted for the part. I doubt very much, with respect, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is mathematically correct.

Mr. John Foster: The Attorney-General maintained that if we do not accept the Bill in its entirety and the Amendment is agreed to, it will be to the disadvantage of those concerned. As the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) pointed out, this Bill is better than nothing, but it needs to be improved.
I should like to bring one point to the Attorney-General's notice. There is some connection between the pension and the lowness of the judge's salary at the present time. The Attorney-General has expressed his sympathy with the view that


the remuneration of the judges should be increased. If the judge has a family, and knows that he is going to retire at a certain time, the small savings which he can achieve at present—but only small savings—will to the extent of the pension be relieved of the burden of supporting his wife and children and himself after his retirement.
If the Attorney-General wanted to increase the salaries of judges, one indirect way of doing that by the Bill, which is a point he could have brought forward in favour of the Bill, was by making a pension available to the judge and by making provision for his wife and children available to him. He does, to that extent, increase the financial standing of a judge who has some small savings. In reply to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) it is true that if we take the gross amount of £54 a week and increase it to £72 a week, it seems a lot of money; but it is necessary that a judge should be in a position that is aloof from the community.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: After he has retired?

Mr. Foster: No, Sir. My argument is that the Bill and this Amendment would increase the financial resources of the judges while they are working.
There are many people in the Civil Service and people with political positions who have allowances for cars and so on, and if the judge, by having this increased pension which the Amendment allows, is able to treat himself during his working time, not to the luxury of a car, but to the possibility of having a car to take him to work, he is only putting himself in the position of many civil servants and those in political positions who also have cars to take them to work. At the moment, we have the spectacle of a judge not being able to keep himself aloof from the community, which is something he has to do, as he may be brought into relation with people he may have to judge later on.
The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that there is a car available to the Attorney-General, as well as the Solicitor-General, to take him to work. Therefore, there ought to be a car or a car allowance for a judge. The provision of a slightly larger pension would enable

a judge so to arrange his financial resources as to be able to have a car while he is working. That would be a way of indirectly raising the judges' salaries, which the Attorney-General has said is a necessary thing to do.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As the hon. and learned Member has got on to the subject of allowances, would it not be more appropriate if a judge got an allowance for his clerk, who is a necesary functionary in a judge's life? If provision is made for a judge's clerk by way of salary, should not provision also be made by way of pension?

Mr. Foster: I quite agree. The reason I did not take that example is because it has been already dealt with. The position of a judge's clerk is a scandal. The judge has to make financial provision for his clerk, although, as I have said, this argument has already been dealt with.

Sir H. Williams: I was a little distressed when the Attorney-General objected to an increase in the remuneration of judges on the grounds of the "wage freeze." I would point out that wage rates are four times what they were when these salaries were fixed. When the salaries of judges were fixed, Income Tax was much less than 9s. in the pound. The value of the salary of a judge is about one-eighth of what it was when it was fixed. I thought it was very ungenerous of the Attorney-General—

The Chairman: I must point out that it is not in order to discuss the question of the salaries of judges, except as incidental to the Bill, which deals with pensions.

Sir H. Williams: I should not have said anything about it but for the fact that the Attorney-General led me astray. He had already led me astray on a previous Bill. He must be more careful; otherwise I shall not take his legal advice.
Some surprise was expressed at the remuneration of the Prime Minister. He gets £4,000 tax free, two tied cottages, a free car, and adding it all up it comes to about £350,000 a year gross. I am sorry that the Attorney-General made such a bad bargain on his life insurance policy. I can declare my interest, for I am a director of a small but expanding company and I can offer him much better terms than he got. He could not have had proper advice at the time.
It is a monstrous thing that the judges are so placed that they cannot retain the position of people, who ought to be completely aloof from the storms and stresses of life in order to perform their vitally important duties in the way they should do. I hope that hon. Members opposite realise the gravity of the situation, because if this continues there will come a time when we shall be unable to attract men of that high intellectual standard of impartiality that is most vital to a clean administration of justice.

Mr. Viant: I have sat here during this debate and have been exceedingly interested in the pleading of the Opposition for these people who are living in genteel poverty. I am astounded that the Opposition have not been more appreciative of the Government's action in this matter. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) availed himself of the opportunity to bring in the subject of salaries, wages and allowances, and he went out of his way to make an attack upon the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not alone in his opposition to the generosity of the Government at the present time. Some of us are rather surprised that these proposals should be introduced at this juncture. There is a large body of wage earners in the country, like the railwaymen, who can scarcely keep body and soul together.
We have a good Government, a Government which have excelled in what they have already done. They are exceedingly generous, and because of that they are making these proposals tonight. Hon. Members opposite should be a little more appreciative of the Government's generosity. Some of the people who will read the reports of this debate in the Press tomorrow morning will be comparing their onerous position with that of those living in genteel poverty, whose interests are being so well advocated by the Opposition tonight. I suggest to the Opposition, in view of the Government's generosity, that they should withdraw their Amendment and allow the Government's proposals to go through without any opposition. After this debate, some of us have the feeling that we would be prepared to throw out these proposals holus-bolus, and if that were to happen, those judges who are to benefit would

have no one to blame but Members of the Opposition.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) has reiterated the argument about the wage freeze. I do not think it is relevant to this matter. We cannot draw any fair parallel. However, it will come as a considerable surprise to a number of people to learn, as the hon. Gentleman has just announced, that after six years of Socialist Government there are large numbers of people in this country who, he says, cannot keep body and soul together. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will get thanked by the leaders of his party for that contribution to the debate.

Mr. Viant: Mr. Viant rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I expect that the hon. Gentleman wants to unsay it. I will give him the chance.

Mr. Viant: I was making a comparison between the position of the railwaymen today and the position of the judges.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee with this totally irrelevant argument about the wage freeze, but if the hon. Gentleman insists upon it he cannot expect me to be sympathetic because I am not in favour of the wage freeze. I am in favour of as many people as possible keeping body and soul together. I do not support the hon. Gentleman's policy of the wage freeze and therefore I am at liberty to disregard that argument altogether.
I want to deal with some of the arguments of the Attorney-General, because he put forward some that sounded attractive and forceful. One was that if the Amendment were accepted the result would be that the lump sum would become subject to tax. The right hon. and learned Gentleman extlained the tax rules which would bring that result about. For the moment I thought that that was an impressive argument, but it is not, really. If that were likely to be the case, all that the Government would need to do is to legislate to meet that situation by putting an Amendment into the Bill to prevent its being brought about. Therefore the argument is not one of any great force.

The Attorney-General: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should alter the whole basis of Income Tax law, in a particular which was recently the subject of legislation I believe, so as to put the judges into a special class?

Mr. Marlowe: The Government did not hesitate in doing so in the case of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said he had consulted those who are concerned. He rightly said that the opinion of the present bench is not of very great value because members of the bench are able to contract out of the scheme, and he thought it better to get the opinion of those who may be affected later. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was, "We have asked them whether they like the Bill and they say they like it." I can promise him that if he puts the Amendment into the Bill and asks them again, they will like the Bill still more. They want a Bill which deals with them with greater justice.
The only other point relates to the amount of the contribution which the judicial officer makes. The deduction of a quarter which is to be made from his pension is, of course, his contribution towards the pension scheme. We have had no figures of any kind to show how that result has been arrived at actuarially. I suppose that it has been worked out by somebody, but it seems to me to be capable of improvement. The amount of contribution which the receiver is to be paid is the question at issue. It may well be that the figures have been worked out on a false basis.
It seems to me very unlikely that there will be any great requirement of children's benefits under the scheme. Figures have been used to arrive at some of these results. It may be that it has been assumed that the actuarial basis was similar to what applies in the Civil Service. A large number of civil servants retire at the ages of 60 or 65, whereas most high judicial officers do not retire until well in the seventies. Experience shows that the prospect of many of them having a child of 16 or one undergoing full-time education after retirement is remote. I put the argument forward because it is relevant to the contribution which a judge ought to make and the deduction which should be made, and if the children's benefit is largely illusory it is strictly

relevant to the amount of the contribution that he should make, and therefore the amount of deduction which should be made from his present rate of pension. I hope that before the Bill leaves the Committee we shall be given the figures to show how the actuaries have arrived at their figures. As things stand at the moment and until better evidence is provided, I hope the Committee will support the Amendment.

Mr. James Hudson: have what I believe to be a helpful suggestion. In view of the total opposition which has been expressed by hon. members opposite, apparently with friendly intentions towards the judges on whose behalf they seem to speak, why should we not withdraw the Bill? Why should we come forward with a Bill upon which the friends of the judges have expressed themselves to be so dissatisfied that they are not even above uttering gratuitous insults against the Prime Minister who is the head of the Government which is responsible for bringing the Bill forward for the benefit of the judges? It is astonishing that after so much opposition we should be considering going on with the Bill at all. I wonder if my suggestion will help the Attorney-General.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely it is agreed on all sides of the Committee that the position of the judges ought to be better? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The Attorney-General said so himself. Giving his own personal opinion, and in the strongest possible terms he said that the position of the judges ought to be better. He is the person who is chiefly responsible and he knows most about it, and he has said that the position ought to be improved and that he would like to bring in a Measure to see that that is done. All that he says is that this is not the appropriate occasion and this is not the appropriate Bill for doing it. Yet he also says that the Bill does make the position better.
Although I agree with the Attorney-General that the language of hyperbole should not be used, I think he approached one might say, asymptotically to hyperbole when he said that this would make the judges £40,000 a year better off. That will be after 30 years or more, according to the terms of the Bill; and nobody can


pretend that it is likely that the value of money will remain undiminished during that period, and it is still more unlikely that any Measure whatever to improve the position of the judges will be brought in before 30 years have passed.
His argument to the Committee should have been directed to the narrow point whether the £10,000 a year, which is all that the immediate improvement will be, is an adequate step to deal with the position of the judges at the present time. The Explanatory Memorandum not only says that it is £10,000 but that it is likely to fall in the immediate future, so that the immediate contribution which is being made is £10,000 a year.
I would have more hope of this Bill, and of the effort of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to improve the position of judges in general, if it were not for the vehement protests of his supporters at any improvement which is suggested. These have come from the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and numerous hon. Members opposite. Does the Attorney-General think he will have an easy passage in the future when he brings forward his promised Bill to improve the position of His Majesty's judges—

The Attorney-General: I am loath to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have promised no Bill and he ought not to put words into my mouth about it. I think he must have listened with care to what I said. I expressed a purely personal view that I would like to see the position of some judges, particularly county court judges, improved. Equally I would like to see improved the position of a lot of other persons earning now much lower salaries or wages. I said that this was not the time when one could hope to carry the country on any improvement in the position of the judges, that we must proceed by stages in regard to this matter, and at no time whatever have I expressed, either on my own behalf or on behalf of the Government, any promise to bring in any Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—

The Chairman: Order. I must ask hon. and right hon. Members not to deal with the question of the salaries of judges except as purely incidental to the purpose of the Amendment. The purpose of the

Amendment is perfectly clear—to reduce the amount of deduction from pension. The question of salary does not come into the matter at all. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not pursue the point, because I have already indicated that it does not come within the purview of the Amendment or, indeed, the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will withdraw in a full and ample manner any suggestion which I may have made inadvertently that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in any way promised to introduce a Bill. In his own words I would say that he said he would like to improve the position of the judges as, indeed, he would like to improve—

The Attorney-General: Some of the judges.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: —the position of some others of His Majesty's subjects. I will put it no higher than that. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman this is an attempt to improve the position of certain of the judges, and it has not met with any very favourable reception on the part of his hon. Friends who support him. We say that the position of the judges should be improved still further. Hon. Members opposite say it should not be improved at all. Indeed the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), also repeated this statement although she, born in the purple in the Civil Service, must know that the problem of how adequate remuneration is to be secured for the higher ranks of His Majesty's servants is a very real one indeed. The necessity of attracting into the ranks of His Majesty's servants the highest talents—as was done in the case of her most brilliant and distinguished father, who gave many years of great service to the State—is a constant pre-occupation of those who have to deal with this difficult problem. We say that in many cases the proposals under this pension scheme will not produce advantage to many of the people whom it is desired to advantage, and in some cases will certainly be disadvantaged.
Is that a good thing for His Majesty's Government to do at the present time? We say, no—and it is easier for a layman to say this than a lawyer—it is not, because the strength of the Bench is the protection of the poor. It is not a gift to be made to wealthy men. There are men in this society of ours who could buy


up these salaries a dozen times over. This is not a question of how men are to become rich but of how men are to obtain justice. As an ex-Minister I know the enormous importance of having and retaining the highest talent in the ranks of the higher civil servants. These are not ways of enriching a few choice individuals. These are ways of ensuring that the service of the country is carried on, and it is of perhaps greater importance to a Socialist State than to any other.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman overlooking the fact that 99 per cent. of crime in this country is dealt with in the courts by unpaid justices of the peace?

9.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member, if I may say so, does not seem to me to be applying his mind to the really difficult point. The really difficult point was well put by the late President Roosevelt when he spoke of "malefactors of great wealth." It is not the drunk and disorderly person who is the chief problem to a State and more particularly to a Socialist State; it is the wealthy man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, Admittedly, there can be a malefactor of great wealth as well as the poor man.

Mr. J. Hudson: Why cannot the poor man judge him?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The question, "Why cannot the poor man judge him?" might as well be applied to the question of the late Dr. Jones, the Secretary to the Cabinet—why cannot the poor man serve the Cabinet? The question of incentive in the higher ranks is one with which every State has to grapple, and it is not dealt with merely by saying, "Let the highest rank receive the same remuneration as the lowest." It has been found in practice that we get a higher service to the State by doing our utmost to attract into the ranks of its servants people of the very highest qualifications. It is a general problem with which we shall have to deal in every sphere, and I only say now that to attempt to raise arguments against an improvement of the position of the judges because other people are getting less is to shut one's eyes, and to shut them wilfully to one of the great problems of the present day. All we say is that the proposals which we brought forward seem to us to be reasonable and moderate.
There are many people whose immediate pensions are being very seriously reduced. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) made an interjection. The Sheriff of Aberdeen is to have his pension reduced from £900 to £675 a year.

The Attorney-General: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These are the figures.

The Attorney-General: Not if he does not want it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to put words into his mouth, but if the Attorney-General will concede our later Amendment that the future Sheriffs of Aberdeenshire should have the same option as the present Sheriffs of that county, we shall be happy to meet him on that point. But the pension of the Sheriffdom—let me put it that way; I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not disagree—of Aberdeenshire is to be reduced from £900 to £675.

Mr. Hoy: He also gets a lump sum.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: He gets a lump sum, he gets a gratuity, and his widow gets a pension of £225 a year.
I am talking now for a reduction, and here is an instance of a man whose pension is being cut. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to defend is the question of those who are being cut and the fact that in many cases a reduction is actually being made. The Attorney-General said that he had consulted those concerned. He said that he had consulted the "silks" in Northern Ireland, but has he consulted them in England? I only know, from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), that he has never been consulted in this matter.

The Attorney-General: Consultation with the "silks" would not take quite that form. I will ascertain whether the "silks" in England have been consulted or not. The point did not arise here because the judges in this country were wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill. If anybody chooses to dispute that, I hope he will do so now, because we want to meet the views of the judges on this matter. If anybody suggests that the judges do not want the Bill, I shall be glad to hear it said.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am perfectly willing to take up that challenge. Is it not the case that the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, by 13 out of 14, have said that they do not want the Bill? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot make a general case applying to all the judges and then object to a specific instance being brought forward. I bring forward that specific instance, which I do not think he can deny, and I am sure that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will not deny it.
The Attorney-General spoke of the case of Northern Ireland and said that the "silks" there had been consulted and were well in favour of the Bill. I asked what was the parallel case in England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman offered very courteously to obtain that information, but so far he has not given it to the Committee.

The Attorney-General: Well, I will give it now. I understand there was no specific consultation with the "silks" here. The "silks" in this country are organised, as the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) knows very well, on an entirely different basis. We have a very active Bar Council which makes representations immediately in regard to any Bill which has a legal connotation and on which it holds a view one way or the other. As a member of that body, and as one who regularly attends its meetings, I have no doubt that if they had opposed this Bill they would not have remained silent. In this country—I mean England when I say that; perhaps it is an inaccurate expression—the judges were wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill and no question arose about it. Only in Scotland and Northern Ireland questions did arise and there we thought it right to fortify our view by obtaining the views of sheriffs substitutes and of the "silks" in Northern Ireland and of the lower ranks of the profession.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rests on representations having been made when they were in favour and on there not being representations against. If I brought forward such an argument, I am sure he would lose no time in immediately tearing it to pieces. We say that an adequate answer has not been given to the moderate and reasonable view put forward to the Committee, and we therefore feel it necessary to divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of what has been said about the "silks" of the English Bar, I wish to say that in the last few days I have dined and lunched in the Law Courts and had many opportunities of which I availed myself of discussing this very matter with my colleagues and I did not come across a single one who was opposed to this Bill. On the contrary, they all took a favourable view of it.
I do not want to prolong the debate, but I say that the burden of justifying this Amendment rests on those supporting it and one would have expected some justification of an actuarial nature or in the form of the Bill's effect on Income Tax of judges or the net sum which ultimately will be received by judges if the Bill goes through in its present form. One would have expected some justification of a concrete form from the proposers of the Amendment. We have had nothing of that sort, but, instead, we have had airy generalities about the standards of the Bench and the Bar, which are not in dispute. The Attorney-General has put forward arguments of an actuarial and Income Tax character which seemed persuasive to me and, in view of the absence by the proposers of any argument of a similar nature as to the concrete effects of the Bill, I think they ought to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, "That 'quarter' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 146; Noes, 131.

Division No. 10]
AYES
[9.25 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blackburn, A. R
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Blenkinsop, A.
Burton, Miss E.


Ayles, W. H.
Booth, A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)


Bacon, Miss A.
Bottomley, A. G.
Champion, A. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowden, H. W.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bartley, P.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Clunie, J.


Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Collick, P.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collindridge, F.




Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Jeget, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Richards, R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robens, A.


Dariing, G. (Hillsboro')
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, A. Edward (Stake, N.)
King, H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Daivies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.


Deer, G.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Donnelly, D.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Simmons, C. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J.


Dye, S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stross, Dr. B.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Follick, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gitzean, A.
Moeran, E. W.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wallace, H. W.


Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Mulley, F. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hargreaves, A.
Neal, H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Harrison, J.
O'Brien, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.
White H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hoy, J.
Pannell, T. C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, G. (Goole)
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
Marples, A. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Foster, J. G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Arbuthnot, John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gage, C. H.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Baldock, J. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Mellor, Sir J.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool Toxteth)
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Nabarro, G.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Nicholson, G.


Black, C. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Headlam, Lieut-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Odey, G. W.


Braine, B.
Heald, L. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. Q.
Heath, E. R.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. W.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Osborne, C.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hill. Dr. C. (Luton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prolumo, J. D.


Channon, H.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Clyde, J. L.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Roper, Sir H.


Colegate, A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Ropner, Col. L.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Russell, R. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Scott, Donald


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stevens, G. P.


Crouch, R. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislop—Northwood)
McAdden, S. J.
Storey, S.


Cundiff, F. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
McKibbin, A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Deedes, W. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Digby, S. Wingfield
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Tilney, John


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tweedsmuir, Lady







Vosper, D. F.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Walker-Smith, D. C.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Major Conant and


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Watkinson, H.
Wills, G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LUMP SUM ON RETIREMENT OR DEATH.)

9.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Attorney-General.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order, Sir Charles. There is a purely drafting Amendment on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—in page 1, line 14, after "that," insert "reduced." I think it would meet the scope of the Bill if you accepted it, Sir Charles.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I understood that if it were moved it would be accepted, Sir Charles.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have not moved anything yet and we can go back to it, but I thought it was not necessary.

The Attorney-General: That Amendment is only a matter of a drafting nicety, and I am not sure that the nicety was not on our side.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I just formally move the Amendment? It is a purely drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that the pension which is referred to in Clause 2 is.—

The Deputy-Chairman: I take the view that it is unnecessary. The Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end to add:
(5) No lump sum may be granted under this section in respect of the service of a person who died before the passing of this Act.
This Amendment is intended to make explicit what is already implicit in Clause 12 in the Bill as introduced, which relates to persons who have already retired, and the Amendment is needed owing to a proposed Amendment to Clause 12 which is intended to make the Bill retrospective to persons who retire between 10th November, the date on which the Bill was introduced, and the passing

of this Measure. I dare say that hon. Members will not want me to discuss the reasons for that now, but this is one of the reasons why I was so distressed at the better being the enemy of the good as exemplified by the last Amendment. It is desirable in the interest of arrangements already made to get this Bill as soon as may be, and this Amendment is designed to promote that end.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Amendment, like so many other Amendments, would perhaps appear at first sight to some to be unnecessary, but I am quite sure in view of the Amendment which is tabled later that it is, in fact, necessary, and we welcome it. I was indeed glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say, with reference to the debate we have just had, that that was a case where the Amendment was better than the good which was already contained in the Bill. I think that this Amendment again will make the Bill better than the good already contained in it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I regret that I must bring the Committee back to the point which was raised a moment ago. It relates to what seems to me to be a clear ambiguity, if there is such a thing, in subsection (1). It says:
Where a person on retirement becomes eligible for a pension for service in any of the capacities listed in the First Schedule to this Act, he may be granted a lump sum equal to twice the annual amount of that pension.
The only place in which the phrase
a pension for service in any of the capacities
has been referred to before is in Clause 1, and it there refers to such a pension being reduced by one-quarter. I should have thought it was quite clear in Clause 2 (1) that it is the unreduced pension which is referred to in the words
a pension for service in any of the capacities.
I ask the Attorney-General to consider this matter. If the Amendment cannot be made now, perhaps such an Amendment can be moved on Report. I think it should be made obvious in the wording


of the Bill that it is the pension as reduced by one-quarter which is the basis for the lump sum.

The Attorney-General: We have considered the Amendment. We might have been prepared, after a little discussion, to accept it in order to please the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller); but as the Amendment was not called, we cannot now accept it. We are satisfied that the drafting needs no change and that the Amendment was not necessary. The hon. and learned Member has made his argument about it, and I will certainly look at what was said when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and reaffirm my view about it. If I do not reaffirm my view, we can move an Amendment on the Report stage.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.·(POWER TO GRANT WIDOWS' AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, at the end, to add:
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on the death after the passing of this Act of a female person (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the deceased") who—

(a) had become eligible for a pension for service in one of the capacities listed in the First Schedule to this Act, or
(b) was serving in any of the said capacities at the time of her death and would, if she had then retired on the ground of permanent infirmity, have become eligible for a pension for that service,

there may be granted in respect of her service a pension for the benefit of children of any marriage of hers and of children adopted by her (hereafter in this Act referred to as a "children's pension").
In moving this Amendment, I should like to refer to a number of others which are related to or consequential upon it. This Amendment, at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Fint, East (Mrs. White), does something to improve the Bill. This is not one of the cases where the better is the enemy of the good. Sometimes the better can be the fatal enemy of the good. In this matter we have been able to meet the suggestion that was put forward by my hon. Friend and this Amendment, together with others in later Clauses, brings it within the scope of certain of the provisions of the Bill.
These Amendments are designed to permit a woman—I think at the moment there is only one, but the day may come when there will be many more—serving in any of the capacities covered by the First Schedule to the Bill, to pay a special contribution in order to secure for any fatherless children of hers, or any children whom she has adopted, either after her death in service or after her retirement, pensions similar to those which would be given to the children of a male occupant. The rate of contribution, from the nature of things, has to be different. It will be payable on the basis of tables prepared by the Government actuary and will vary according to the relative ages of the woman herself and the children concerned. I am told that in most cases the contribution works out at a very, very small sum indeed. We can go into that later on particular Amendments, if the Committee desires to do so.
The contribution will always be calculated ad hoc in relation to the particular woman concerned. On the other hand, the pension of the children will always be calculated at the higher rate applicable to children where there is no widow. Unlike the main scheme for widows and children, this does not represent any reduction in the lump sum, equal in every case. The contribution is based on the circumstances of the particular case and I have no doubt it will be beneficial to those women officers, if any there be, who, on retirement, find themselves with children still dependent upon them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We cannot discuss all these Amendments at the same time, but I am sure the Committee are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for explaining them all at the same time. I am sure it is a good thing that this Bill should have its provisions extended so as to cover any women who hold, or will hold in the future, any of the offices specified in the First Schedule.
There are, however, one or two points to which I draw the attention of the Committee, while welcoming this provision. In the first place, I think it is clear—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that under this provision there is no possibility of any kind of pension being received by the widower of the woman who has held office. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but cases may occur where, from


physical infirmity, the husband is incapable of earning his livelihood, where the woman holding office has been maintaining him, and where he will be deprived of all support by her death.
We have had many debates in this House on the question of equal pay and things of that sort, and I would point out that, unless there is provision for a grant of a pension to widowers in certain circumstances, this would appear to be a case in which women and men are being differently treated with the advantage, as usual, lying in the woman's favour. I do not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give me an answer now, but I should like to ask him about the possibility of making provision for the widower—it might be a discretionary provision—to meet the sort of case I have indicated.
9.45 p.m.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the remarkable wording of one of the Amendments to which the Attorney-General has referred—the Amendment to Clause 7, page 5, line 23. The Committee will see that it says:
Where are deceased was a woman, subsection (2) of this section shall apply as it applies where the deceased was a man leaving no widow and subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply.
At first sight that does take a good deal of working out, but I am sure it is not the nonsense one may think it to be at first sight.
I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm whether I am right about this other thing. There is one departure also being made, in these provisions extending this Bill to women, from the general scheme of the Bill, and the departure is not unimportant, as I see it. It is in the Amendment to Clause 5, by which any woman office holder appointed in the future will have the right of election as to whether she is going to make a contribution for her children—a right of election which will be denied, if the Bill goes through in its present form, to every male person appointed after the passage of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right, and that provision is made for the reason that the contribution is to be based actuarially on her particular circumstances. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider whether he wants to apply that

principle to the judges—there is a very great difference—to provide an election where the actuarial basis of the scheme is averaged out over the judges as a whole. If we were to provide an actuarial pension based on the circumstances of each particular case, no doubt the Government could do it; no doubt, they could do it just as well as a life office could do it; but it would not be so beneficial to the beneficiaries.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(WIDOW'S PENSION.)

Mr. Turton: beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "may be," and to insert "shall not be less than."
I think it would be convenient if we took into consideration now also the next Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to add:
or six pounds per week whichever is the greater.
The effect of this Amendment is to secure that these widows' pensions shall not in any case be less than £6 a week. I recognise that there is the preliminary point that, as the Clause is now drafted, the amount of the pension may be one-third. It is permissive, and not mandatory as my Amendment would make it. However, the position does appear to me to be that, in the case of certain of these judicial officers, the pension to which the widow will be entitled will be as low as. £3 4s. 3d. a week, if not less.
I believe that that is not the way in which this Committee should treat the widows of judicial officers. They are holding very honourable positions in this country, and all parties, I think, want to see that, when they die in harness, as some of the county court judges do, their widows are decently provided for by the country. I should have thought that to put the figure at £6 a week, which is broadly on the level of a pension of a serving officer of the rank of colonel or brigadier, would not be putting it too high.
The position, as I see it, is that if a High Court judge dies in harness his widow gets the same pension however long he has been on the bench, but if a county court judge has served for only five years


and dies in harness, his widow gets no more than £3 4s. 3d. a week. That seems to me to be entirely wrong discrimination. It is not the habit for the pension of a widow to be determined by the length of her husband's service. Her difficulty is just as great whether her husband has been a county court judge for five, 10 or 15 years.
Unless the Bill is remedied, we shall have the anomalous position that the widow of a county court judge who has been sitting for only five years will be receiving a smaller pension than the widows of two of the present Registrars who are officers of the court. I know that that has been raised on an earlier Amendment, and I will not labour the point. I entreat the Committee, when considering these widows' pensions, to do nothing shabby. I believe, that to give a minimum pension of £6 a week to the widows of these judicial officers would be reasonably fair treatment by Parliament in this matter.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I rise to support these Amendments, which I feel will have the sympathy of both sides of the Committee, because earlier this evening particular concern was expressed by everybody at the condition and status of county court judges. The Committee here has an opportunity of coming to the aid of the poorest section of the judges' community, with whom we are dealing in this Bill. In this Amendment we suggest that the minimum pension for the widow of a county court judge should be £6 a week instead of £3 4s. 3d., as it would be if the Bill were left in its present form.
I believe that part of the high prestige which Britain has enjoyed for so long has been tied up inextricably with the incorruptibility and impartiality of British justice. Our British justice has been a byword throughout the world wherever British rule has held sway, and to my mind one of the essential contributory factors in maintaining that high standard has been the financial security of our judges. In the old days, when taxation was not so heavy, it was possible for our judges to provide for their widows out of their income, but today, with taxation at its present level, not only must we see that the judges have adequate salaries, but we must also see that they have the assurance

that when they die their widows will be properly provided for.
I am asking the Committee to consider this problem, which is a problem not so much from the point of view of the High Court judges as from the point of view of the county court judges, who are much larger in number. I feel that any failure in justice might take place, due possibly to the wanderings of mind of a judge obsessed by the worries of what was going to happen to his widow when he died, would be reflected on British justice as a whole. If this Bill is not amended, the county court judge's widow at the lowest would get £3 4s. 3d. a week. I believe that if cheesesparing of this type is to be permitted by this House it will be reflected in a lowering of the type of judge we shall be able to recruit to the service in the future, that British justice will suffer, and that it will tend to lower British prestige throughout the world. I therefore support the Amendments.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The effect of this Amendment would be twofold. First it would make the widow's pension mandatory and not discretionary, as it is under the terms of the Bill, and secondly, it would put a floor of £6 a week underneath all widows' pensions in the Bill. There are really two objections to making the pension mandatory, one of which, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment mentioned, is that if we make it mandatory, the lump sum and the right to widow's pension would no longer be exempt from Death Duty, as they are under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, that in itself would be disadvantageous to the judges and their families, and I am not at all sure that the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has suggested would necessarily get us out of that difficulty.
The main part of the Amendment is to put the minimum at £6 a week and make it applicable to all these pensions. There are, briefly, three objections which we see to that. The first is that it would inevitably throw out the actuarial basis of this scheme. The scheme, as has been explained by my right hon. and learned Friend, is actuarial as it stands, and obviously any alteration in favour of the judges and the widows and children and to the disadvantage of the Exchequer


would destroy that actuarial basis. Actually, this proposal, we estimate, would cost something like an additional £15,000 a year.
Secondly—and I think that this is probably the more serious objection—such a change would conflict with the whole principle of Civil Service pensions. Widows under Civil Service pension schemes have their pensions calculated at one-third of the pension of the husband. I do not think that we can accept the introduction of a totally different principle. It could indeed be quoted as a precedent for other Government pension schemes which may be introduced in the future. We feel that that is probably the most important objection to this Amendment.
There is, however, one further objection to the Amendment. That is an arithmetical one. If we put a minimum of £312 a year on all these pensions, we would in certain cases have a case where the widow's pension actually exceeded the pension previously paid to the husband and wife together. That would be an anomaly which, I think, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not support. For these reasons, which I have put briefly, we do not feel able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Although they may be brief, they seem to us to be extremely bad. I am astonished to find the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seeking to treat the judges as if they were civil servants and resisting the moderate Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, on the basis that this would make an exception to the general rule for dealing with civil servants. It really is a most astonishingly weak argument, but it does reveal, I think with some clarity, the Government's attitude of mind towards the position of judges. The Chorley Committee made their recommendations for increases. That is for the Civil Service; therefore, of course, the judges do not come in.

It being Ten o'Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

ALKALI, &c., WORKS REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[The Lord Advocate.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), "That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for increasing the amount which may not be exceeded by town councils in Scotland in respect of certain expenditure; for raising the limit on special district rates leviable by county councils in Scotland, and to restrict the power of county councils and town councils in Scotland to borrow money for certain purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, which is attributable to increased expenditure by a town or a county council in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Jay.]

Captain Crookshank: May I ask how it is that this Business is being taken after Ten o'Clock? Is this exempted Business?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not exempted Business; but objection has not been taken.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ceylon) Order, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th September."—[Mr. Jay.]

10.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We should like to know whether the Government are going to take any similar Orders in the near future—I see that there are three Orders on the Order Paper. We have no objection to this particular Order, but we should like to have a little more information.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I cannot give details of the actual Orders we are proposing to introduce on any specific date. There are a whole series of agreements of this sort in contemplation which, when they are concluded, we shall bring before the House in the same way.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Cannot the Financial Secretary be a little more specific? Does he expect any more before Christmas?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think that question is relevant to the Motion before the House. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has anything to say on this particular Order, I will call him.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should have thought that it was within the terms of this Motion to ask for further information as to whether the Government are or are not intending to bring in further Orders of the same nature. Indeed, the Government may wish to make a general statement; if not, we shall have to ask for more particular information on this Order.

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. and gallant Friend asked a specific question on this Order, and I should like to know if the Financial Secretary is going to answer it and if not whom does he propose should answer it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister is perfectly at liberty to answer any question

on this specific Order, but not on the point as to whether other Orders may or may not be laid before Christmas.

Mr. Jay: I am afraid I am unable to give information about future Orders, but I am very glad to assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the present Orders before the House are based on the draft model agreement drawn up by the Fiscal Committee of the League of Nations and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations Fiscal Commission. The two Colonial Orders with Sarawak and Brunei, which are identical, also follow the pattern of a model arranged for the Colonies, which in turn was based upon the general League of Nations model drawn up by the Revenue Department in counsultation with the Colonial Office.
The third Order, that with Ceylon, follows the pattern of the general double taxation agreements which we have already concluded with the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and the older established Dominions. We have not yet concluded an agreement with India or Pakistan, where special difficulties have arisen. There are no features in these agreements which differ from others of the same category, which have hitherto been introduced. They follow the general model, and I do not think raise any special controversial points.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ceylon) Order, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th September.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sarawak) Order. 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 9th November.—[Mr. Jay.]

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Brunei) Order, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 21st November.—[Mr. Jay.]

Addresses to be presented by Privy Counsellors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

DOMICILIARY PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I want to raise a matter which concerns not a large number of people and not a large sum of money, but which to those who are concerned is a matter of very great importance. Under the National Health Service, regional hospital boards are required to provide satisfactory physiotherapy services. I understand that those services are very satisfactory, despite difficulties in the early stages, but that there are some people, such as sufferers from cardiac complications, heart disease, old age and advancing infirmity, for whom the treatment is prescribed but who cannot go to the hospitals and clinics. To meet the needs of those people a domiciliary service is needed. Several regions have worked out contractual arrangements with outside agencies, such as district nursing associations and private practitioners, to take the service to these patients.
Such arrangements appear to have had the blessing of the Ministry of Health. I have a letter dated July, 1948, from the Ministry to the secretary of the Liverpool Queen Victoria District Nursing Association stating that if the regional board think it is necessary to make such an arrangement to supplement the resources of the hospital, they might do so. A large number of such arrangements have been in operation during the last 12 months. They vary in their quality from place to place, but I am assured that most of them have worked extremely well in the view of the boards which set the standard and in the view of the patients.
To mention the service I know best, I would refer the Parliamentary Secretary to one which is extremely good. It is one of the first, if not the first, of the domiciliary services, and it was organised by the Liverpool Queen Victoria District Nursing Association four or five years ago, before the Health Service began. It is not without significance that it was this organisation that pioneered in the field of domiciliary nursing of any kind about 100 years ago, and for a large number

of years it has provided physiotherapy. No fewer than 26 district nursing associations are operating a mobile service of this kind, many of them under some form of contract with the regional boards. All these regions appear to have received instructions now which they are interpreting as a direction to terminate their contracts and arrangements with the district nursing associations.
The first question I want to address to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. In view of the fact that, after all, it is the region which is responsible for conducting this service as well as all the services for which it is responsible, were the regional boards consulted before they were instructed to cancel the contract? Were they asked whether they had an alternative arrangement to put into operation or whether they considered that the contract was an advantageous one from the point of view of either the board or the patient? After all, it is with the regional board that the responsibility lies. The House will want to know why the instruction was given at all and what it is proposed to put in the place of the present arrangement.
It is more than a little difficult to follow the reasons set out in the circulars and letters from the Ministry. I have here a circular which was presented to me as being the circular upon which the regional boards were to take action in this matter. Paragraph 2 includes this sentence:
The shortage of adequately trained personnel, which will continue for an indefinite period, makes it imperative to concentrate them in hospital departments.
Tonight is not the occasion for me to dwell on the ominous ring in the phrase "concentrate them." I am not sure whether this is a veiled introduction to a new form of direction of labour, but I am sure that the trained personnel would have a good deal to say about it if they thought there was any proposal to direct them into hospital departments. I shall refer to this aspect of the matter later, because it is germane to the whole argument.
Paragraph 5 of the same circular—conveniently over the page—includes this sentence:
In the Minister's view it would be found more effective as well as more economical to employ additional physiotherapists … than to seek to continue contractual arrangements. …


One paragraph speaks of a shortage which is being experienced now and which is expected to continue and another paragraph contains the bland assumption that it is possible to go on employing additional trained physiotherapists at the present time.
In a very careful examination of the relevant papers which I have been able to obtain, I have found no very clear statement of what it is that the Minister is seeking to do by this instruction to cancel the present arrangements; whether it is to secure the best and the fullest use of a kind of skill which is in short supply, whether it is to ensure that the patient receives adequate and proper treatment, or whether the thing is being done on the grounds of economy.
As to making sure that we are securing the best and fullest use of the personnel available, I would point out that 26 district nursing associations at least are operating their own domiciliary service and employing physiotherapists in the performance of these duties in the ordinary course of the activities of those associations. Those physiotherapists will in all probability continue in the service of those associations whether there is a contract agreement between the association and the board or not. At any rate, these physiotherapists will be used less rather than more under the conditions which will obtain after this instruction is put into operation. I am sure that that cannot result in the best and fullest use of the physiotherapists.
If there is any suggestion that boards can solve the residual problem which will be theirs after this instruction is carried out by setting up their own mobile unit, it will have an equally disadvantageous effect on any ambitions to use the personnel more fully or more adequately. There will be competition between the various boards for these scarce services and between the boards and the present employers, whether private practitioners or nursing associations, of the physiotherapists at present in operation.
Nor can I find any grounds anywhere for believing that the present service is anything but very satisfactory. I have a letter from the secretary of the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board in which he sets out the terms on which the board does

business with the district nursing association. There could not be a clearer definition of the limitations on the service to be used, and how the quality of that service is to be watched to the satisfaction of the Board. The letter says:
… the treatment for which the Board will accept financial responsibility would be restricted to those exceptional cases where the service was necessary in the patient's own interest because it would be harmful to convey the patient to the nearest hospital or clinic, and on the recommendation of the Hospital Consultant after either hospital investigation or domiciliary consultation.
If the service proved to be less than satisfactory, the hospital consultant would be in a position to bring it to an end, and if it were satisfactory, then the board would wish to have the service continued and perhaps extended. So far as I am able to discover, there have been no complaints yet of the quality of the service rendered by the District Nursing Association with their mobile physiotherapy services. So the effect of this order cannot be to improve the service available to the patient.
Above all else, the Ministry appears to be particularly ill-informed on the costs of the different systems. In a letter sent to the secretary of the Liverpool Queen Victoria District Nursing Association from the Ministry of Health, which I understand is typical of those that have gone to other people, appears the following sentence:
The system of contracting with other agencies … has proved to be expensive.
The Parliamentary Secretary ought to be prepared to support that statement with some figures. I apologise for repeatedly referring to the instance I know best, but, so far as the Liverpool area is concerned, it results in a cost to the board of not more than 9s. per treatment. There are other arrangements in different parts of the country; in one case the cost to the board is 11s. and in another 14s.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to ask the House to believe that any system which he can conceive and establish, with all the resources at his disposal, will result in treatment being available to the patient at a lower cost than that? It cannot be done if it is proposed, as might be possible in certain cases, to bring the patient to the hospital at grave inconvenience, disturbance and disadvantage to the patient. The cost of transport alone, taking the average for the country, is about 20s. a trip in


the ambulance. On grounds of economy, then, there is nothing whatever to be said in favour of the instruction issued by the Minister.
This matter, almost more than any other, is one which ought to rest with the regions concerned and responsible for the treatment. They should be entitled, within the exercise of their normal duties of the day-to-day running of the health services, to decide a matter like this themselves; and where they can find and arrange an efficient and inexpensive service, they should not be subjected to this kind of blanket instruction.
In response to my initial inquiry, I received a letter from the Ministry of Health explaining what was happening, and finishing with this alarmingly casual sentence:
Where in exceptional cases, patients for whom physiotherapy has been prescribed cannot attend a hospital or local clinic arrangements can usually he made for them to be treated at home.

Mr. Collick: Is the hon. Member going to allow the Minister time to reply?

Mr. Thompson: I hope to do so. A sentence of that kind will strike alarm in the mind of any person who is receiving this kind of treatment and knows that arrangements have been made to cancel it. I hope the Minister will reconsider the circular instruction and will avoid prejudicing the well-being of the patient and the good repute of his Service.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): It is, of course, with the welfare of the patients that both we in the Ministry and hon. Members must be chiefly concerned. I should like first to give the assurance that, with regard to individual patients, whether in Liverpool or elsewhere, we shall of course ensure that those who require physiotherapy treatment in their homes on medical grounds shall continue to receive it; that must be our intention. We should, however, always insist that physiotherapy provided in the home is a very poor second best to that which is provided in the better medical surroundings of a hospital or clinic properly fitted out for the purpose.
I was a little alarmed by the categories of cases which the hon. Member for

Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) listed as the sort that would naturally require physiotherapy treatment at home. He included, for example, old people. The requirements depend very much on the individual case, and we would regard it as a very exceptional case that should be treated at home. With old people, as with others, the important question is to give active treatment, and not tend to provide treatment on a sort of permanent basis, nor to let it be regarded as a natural part of the life of the patient. That is the great danger with domiciliary treatment of this kind.
I have a certain amount of personal interest in physiotherapy services, as I believe I have declared before. My wife is a physiotherapist, although no longer actively practising, and I am brought face to face with physiotherapy problems comparatively frequently. I appreciate very much the value of the work that can be done.
Let me give some of the arguments which we think are reasonable arguments why we should do our utmost to ensure that treatment should be taken other than in the home. First, as I have already said, there is the very grave tendency that treatment may become no more than a palliative, and that we must avoid. The whole trend of modern medical treatment is to try to ensure the active participation of the patient, as well as of the practitioner and specialist concerned; otherwise the best results cannot be hoped for. It is obvious that the amount of equipment that can be provided with a domiciliary team, even a well organised one, which, I fully accept, is provided in Liverpool, is very limited as compared with the provision in a hospital. Furthermore, it is certainly not economical of trained staff that they should be wandering about the countryside, as it were, giving individual treatment instead of being able to provide treatment for several patients together in a clinic, whether part of a hospital premises or outside it.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am concerned, of course, only with those who simply cannot be treated except at home. Perhaps my definition of the cases was rafther broader than that given by the Minister.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I agree that it is very difficult to establish a proper definition. Our experience, not necessarily only in


Liverpool, but elsewhere, has been that where contracts of this sort are entered into, whether with an organisation of the kind which has been mentioned or, in some extreme cases, with individual physiotherapists, the danger has been of a gradual growth of demand which cannot properly be regarded as a medical demand.
This is not only a problem of the initial control of the cases that are to be dealt with. I think the hon. Member will appreciate that we are concerned not merely with sifting out those which could properly be regarded in the initial stages as medical cases, but with some method of assuring that we have a reasonably proper control over how long the treatment should be continued. The difficulty with domiciliary treatment is that it tends to become permanent instead of being, in the very exceptional cases which we would regard as requiring domiciliary treatment, rather a method of ensuring that patients can at some later date go to the hospital for treatment that will be very much better for them.
The important thing, therefore, is not merely to have control of the initiation of the scheme, but also to have a direct control over its continuation and to be able to decide at what point the domiciliary treatment should stop and treatment at the hospital or clinic should commence. It has been our experience that it is extremely difficult to achieve that when contracts of this kind are made with the nursing associations or, in some exceptional cases, with physiotherapists themselves. We insisted from the start in paying very great regard to ensuring that the treatment was provided in hospitals. That was laid down very clearly in the earlier circulars which we issued. We did say that for exceptional cases treatment should be provided in the different ways which have been mentioned, if it was indeed impossible for the patients concerned to move to the hospital; but we have made it clear that it was our desire to establish any domiciliary service which might be needed through the hospital itself at the earliest possible moment.
It seems from experience of what is happening, not only in this centre but in others, that these contracts create what we regard as an unwarranted demand on

purely medical grounds. It seemed to us essential to insist upon a stricter control than was available initially. Therefore, we sent out this general circular to the regional hospital boards calling attention to this situation and asking the boards to bring the contracts they had entered into to an end at the earliest possible moment. We have, of course, entered into discussions with the regional hospital boards on the best way of carrying this out and ensuring that there should not be any loss of treatment for those who must have it in this way.
I am glad to say that discussions are being entered into with the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board on this matter, as they have been with the other boards, to work out the practical ways in which the problem can be overcome, either by the use of the existing hospital staff or, if necessary, by the appointment of part-time or of one full-time physiotherapist to the staff. If that should prove impossible we shall look into the matter again to make sure that there is no loss of the service to those who really need it.
But I want to impress on hon. Members that, as in other matters under the Health Service, this subject, which I might say is on the periphery of the Health Service, is one into which a good deal of abuse can creep, and we must be very careful. This is a service which is partly medical and which is very important on medical grounds. It also can give value and encouragement to many people on other than medical grounds. I think it will be realised that it is essential, at a time when we need to ensure economy in the Health Service, to provide proper and effective control. It is for that reason that we have put out this more recent circular to the regional boards, and why we are entering into discussions with them now.

Mr. Thompson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he give the assurance that if the discussions now proceeding between his officers and the boards mean that it may be necessary, in order to tide over the period for which no arrangements exist, any board will be free to make such necessary arrangements to cover the interim period?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We have extended the time once already to meet that sort difficulty, and I think I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we should be willing to do so again. We want to check up on the individual cases to see whether they do need domiciliary treatment or not, and

to discuss the best method of overcoming the problem.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.